The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc.

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

IN THE MATTER OF THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, INC.

CONSENT SETTLEMENT IN REGARD '1' 0 THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 (a) OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AS AMENDED Docket 6044. Complaint, Sept. 1952-Decision, July 19.5. Where a corporation engaged in the manufacture of numerous rubber products including a line of rubber heels and soles and heels and soles made of an elast.omer resin blend called "Neolite " it.s trademark, and other supplies and materials used in the shoe repair industry, and in the competitive interstate sales and distribution of said shoe products nationally t.o shoe manufact.urers and to wholesalers of shoe repair materials, or, as generally known, sboe linders, by whom said products were sold t.o shoe repair men retail shoe sto.res, or retaHers of shoe repair and maintenance material; In selling its said shoe products pursuant. to its "quantity bonus plan for shoe products distributors" whereby it allowed to each of its shoe finder customers a volume bonus, payable by merchandise credit on cumulative total of net purchases (tot.al biling' less all credit.s except for transportation and cash discount) of shoe products made by each during the annual period ending Tune 30, in accordance with a schedule callng for a bonus of 1 percent on cUllula tive annual purchases ranging from$G OOO to $10 000, 2 percent on those ranging from $10 000 to $15.000 , 2 /2 percent on t.hose ranging from 815,000 to $20 000 and therenJt.er for bonuses ranging in five successive steps from :1 percent to 5 percent for such IJurchases ranging from $20 000 to $40,000 and over, and, as later modified, for 5 percent for such purchases ranging from $40 000 t.o $()O OOO, () percent for those from $()O,OOO to less than $100 000, and ()% percent for those of $100 000 and over; and thereby iu effect directly or indirectly reduced prices charged favored customers to a substantially lower amount than those charged other customers- Diserimina tell in price between different purchasers of its said shoe products of lilw grade and quality by selling the same to some of it.s shoe finder customers at higher prices t.han to other of its said cust.omers, including among those thus favored were lliany who were engaged, in the various trade areas, in the resale of said products in competition with ot.her shoe finders who purchased such products from it, and who were not thus favored: Held That. aforesaid described plan, acts and practices were in violation of the provisions of subsec. (a) of Sec. 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson- Patman Act.

Before Mr. Abner E. Lipscomb hearing examiner. Mr. James I. Rooney and Mr. James S. K elaher for the Commission. M1' . Howard L. Hyde and Mr. Robert Orafts of Akron, Ohio Mr. John O. ButZer and iYh. WaltC'" E. Tinsley, of Chicago, Ill. , and Mr. Perr 8. Patterson of IVashington, D. for respondent. Consent Settlement 50 F. T. C. COXSEXT SETTLElIfEXT 1 Pursuant to the provisions of an Act of Congress entitled "An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monop- .olies, and for other purposes " approved October 15, 1914 (Clayton Act), as ampnded by an Act of Congress approved .June 19 , 193G (Hobinson- Patman Act), the Federal Trade Commission, on the 9th day of September 1952, issued and subsequently served its complaint on the respondent named in the caption herein, charging it with violation of subsection (a) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended. The respondent, desiring that this proceeding be disposed of by the consent settlement procedure provided in Hule V of the Commission s Hules of Practice, solely for the purposes of this proceeding, any review thereof, and the enforcement of the order consented to, and condit.ioned upon the Commission s acceptance of this consent. settlement in the 1'orm herein set forth, and in lieu of answer to said complaint heretofore filed and which, upon acceptance by the Commission of this settlement., is to be withdrawn from the record, hereby (and prior to the cOlImencement of the taking of any testimony herein) 1. Admit.s all of the jurisdictional allegations set forth in the complaint.

2. Consents that the Commission may enter the matters hereinafter set forth as its findings as to the facts, conclusion, and order t.o cease and desist. It is understood that the respondent, in consenting to the Commission s entry of said findings as to the fact.s, conclusion, and order to cease and desist, specifically refrains from admitting or denying that it has engaged in any of the acts or practices stated therein to be in violation of law or that such acts and practices, if engaged in would be in violation of law.

3. Agrees that this consent settlement may be set. aside in whole or in part. under the conditions and in t.he manner provided in paragra.ph (f) of Rule V of the Commission s Rules of Practice. The admit.ted jurisdictional fact.s, the stat.ement of the acts and practices which the Commission had reason to believe were unlawful the conclusion based t.hereon, and the order to cease and desist, all of which respondent consents may be entered in final disposition of this proceeding, are as follows:

1 The Cornmi:;sion s "Notice" announcing and promulgating the consent settlement as published llcrewitlJ , follows:

lhe consent settlement tendered by the parties in this proceeding, a copy of which is 'Served herewith, was accepted by the Commission on July 29, 1953, and! ordered entered of record as the Commission s findings as to the facts, conclusion, and order in disposition of this proceeding.

The time for filing report of compliance pursuant to the aforesaid order runs. from the da te of service hereof.

Commissioner Howrey not participating and Commissioner Mason dissenting. THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. , INC. 145 J43 IJ'ndings COMMISSION S FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "respondent Goodyear " is a Delaware corporation with its principal office and place of business located at 1144 E. Market Street, Akron, Ohio, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Thc Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. PAR. 2. Respondent Goodyear is now and has been for many years last past engaged in the sale and distribution of numerous rubber products, including a line of rubber heels and soles, and heels and soles made of an elastomer resin blend called "N eolite" (a trademark of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company), and other supplies and materials used in the shoe repair industry, and hereinafter referred to as shoe products. Said shoe products are manufactured at Windsor Vermont, by The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company of Vermont Inc., also a subsidiary of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, and for which respondent is the sales outlet. Respondent Goodyear sells said shoe products nationally to shoe manufacturers and to wholesalers of shoe repair materials, the laUeI' being known generally as shoe finders. Respondent Goodyear does not sell its shoe products to shoe repairmen, relail shoe stores, or to retailers of shoe repair and maintenance materials, sales of said shoe products to such retailers being made by the shoe finders to whom respondent Goodyear sells.

PAR. 3. Ilespondent Goodyear causes said shoe products, when sold to be transported from the place of manufacture at IVindsor, Vermont, to purchasers thereof located in various other States of the United States and in the District of Columbia. There is and has been at all times herein mentioned a continuous current of trade and commerce in said products across State lines between the said factory and the place of business of the purchasers of said shoe products. Said shoe products are sold and distributed for use, consumption, and resale within the various States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

PAR. 4. In the course and conduct of its business as aforesaid, respondent Goodyear is now and during the times herein mentioned has been in substantial competition with other corporations and firms engaged in the business of manufacturing shoe products in commerce between and among the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia.

PAIL 5. Respondent Goodyear, in the course and conduct of its business, as hereinbefore set forth, has been since .July 1, 1949, lmd now is discriminating in price between difierent purchasers of its shoe prod- 4() 443-57- , \\, _._. . ; ) Findings 50 F. T. C.

ucts of like grade and quality by selling said products to some of its shoe finder customers at lower prices than to others of its shoe finder customers.

PAR. 6. The discriminations in price referred to in Paragraph have been since .July 1, 1949 and now are effected pursuant to respondent Goodyear s "quantity bonus plan for shoe products distributors whereby it has allowed to each of its shoe finder customers a volume bonus on cumulative total of net purchases (total billing Jess all credits except for transportation and cflsh discount) of shoe products made by each during the annual period ending ,June 30, said bonus being payable by merchandise credit. after the eud of such annual period, in accordance with the following schedule:

Cumulative annual purchases: Percent- Less tlwn *,') 000-- -- "OIl' 000 but less t.han $10 000__------_- $10,000 Imt less than $15.000-- $15 000 but less than $20 000__ 21j2 $20,000 but Jess than $25 000- -- 3 $25 000 lmt less than $80 000-- 8'12 $80 000 Imt Jess than $35,000_ $::5 000 Imt It' ss t.hall $40,000- - 4% $40 000 ami over-- During the year 1950 respolllent Goodyeal' modified the foregoing schedule by changing the amounts in the 5 percent bracket from $40 000 and over " to "$40 000 but less than $50 000 " and adding thereto the following brnckets:

Cun1ulative unnual purchases: Percent $60 000 but less than $100 000- $100 000 and over - --- H% and has continued, since that time, to sell said products pursuant to said schedule as modified.

Said ('umulative volume discount plan Ims the net effect, either (li- ('t.l.v Ol in(lirectly, of reducing prices charged hvored customers to a substantially lower amount than respondent charges ot.her of it.s l UStollers for products of like grade and quality. Many of t.he favored customers receiving the benefits of the aforesaid discriminations in price an' competitively engaged in the resale of said products with other shoe tindel's who purchase shoe products from respondent and who are not so Javored within the various trading areas in which said Ja vorecl customers are eugaged in business. \H. 7. The ell'eel 01' such discriminations in price as set forth in Paragraph ;') ami Paragraph (j may be substantially to lessen com- THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. , INC. 147 143 Order petition or tend to create a monopoly in the lines of commerce in which respondent and its customers arc respectively engaged; or to injure destroy or prevent competition with respondent or with customers thereof who receive the benefits of such discriminations. COJlfMISSION S CONCLUSION The foregoing described plan, acts and practices of respondent Goodyear are in violation of the provisions of subsection (a) of Sec- Title 15, Sec. 13), as amended bytion :2 of the Chlyton Act (1;: S. the Robinson-Pfltman Act, approved June 19 1936. onder TO CEASE AND DESIST It is ordered That respondent, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc., a corporation, its offcers, agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in or in connection with the oflering for sflle, sale or distribution of rubber and composition heels and soles and other supplies and mflterials used in the shoe repair industry in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the aforesflid Clayton Act, do forthwith cease and desist from (l1sc1'iminating in price (directly or indirectly) between different purchasers of said products.

(1) By selling such products of like grade and quality to any purchaser at prices lower than those granted other purchasers who in fact compete with the favored purchaser in the resale or distribution of such products;

(2) By selling, in competition with others, such products of like grade and quality to any purchaser at prices lower than to any other purchasers: Provided, howe'/!er That the foregoing shall not be construed to preclude respondent from defending absolutely any alleged viohtion of this provision of the Order by showing that none of the products sold at lower prices were resold by the purchaser at the same level of distribution as were the products sold by respondent at higher prices.

For the purpose of comparison, the term "price" as used in this order takes into account discounts, rebates or allowances, volume or otherwise U1d other terms and conditions of sale. It is fUTtheT ordel' That respondent shall, within sixty (60) days after the serviee upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report ill writing setting forth in detail the mauner and form in whi.ch it has complied with this order.

148 FlmEHAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Order 50 F.

THE GOODYEAR Tnil & RunBER COMPANY, INC.

a corporation (Sgd) HARRY L. POST HARRY L. POST, General Manager, Shoe Products Division (Sgd) ROnERT CRAFTS ROBERT CRAFTS (Sgd) JOHN C. BUTI"

;rohn C. BUTLJm Of Oounsel for Respondent.

Dated this 19th day of February 1953.

The foregoing consent settlement is hereby accepted by the Federal Trade Commission and ordered entered of record this 29th day of July 1953.

Commissioner Howrey not participating and Commissioner Mason dissenting.

SULLIVAN RUBBER CORP. 149 Syllabus IN THE .MATTE!! OF SULLIVAN RUBBER CORPORATION CONSENT SECL'TLEMENT IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 (a) OF 'THE CLAYTON ACT, AS AMENDED JUly, 1953 Docket 6045. Complaint, Sept. 1952-Decision, Where a corporation engaged in the manufacture, sale and dist.ribution of a line of shoe products, namely, rubber and composition heels and soles and other supplies ami materials used in the shoe repair industry, and of shoe and findings, namely, machinery, equipment and supplies used in the repair maintenance of shoes and the opera tion of shoe repair shops, and in the commanu- petitive interstate sale and distribution of said shoe products to shoe findings facturers and in the sale of both said shoe products and shoe nationally to wholesalers of shoe repair materials, or, as known generally, shoe finders, by whom said shoe products and shoe findings were resold to shoe repair men, retail shoe stores and retailers of shoe repair and maintenance materials;

t.o its cumulativeIn sellng its said shoe products and shoe findings pursuant volume discount plan whereby it granted discounts, rebates or allowances prices less regular trade from its net sellng prices on shoe products (list findings based upon discount of 28 percent), and from its list prices on shoe the customer s annual cumulat.ive total purchases of both in accordance with different schedules as variously effective, modified or revised in which discounts, rebates or allowances (1) ranged from 1 percent to 5 percent in which aggregated eight graduated steps beginning with such purchases 000 and 000 but were less than $5 000, and concluding with those of $35 over; (2) as later added to, ranged additionally, for shoe products, from 5'1 percent to 9 percent in eight graduated steps, which began with such 000, and cumulative annual purchases aggregating from $35 000 to $45 concluded with those of $105 000 and over, with qualifying purchasers automatically receiving a 5 percent discount on their purchases of shoe findings; and (3) as finally effective, ranged from 1 perceut to 10 percent for shoe products and one-half thereof for shoe findings as determined by such cumulative annual purchases beginning with $3 000 and ending with those of findings after combined $50 000 or over, remained at 5 percent for shoe annual purchases reached $50 000, and ranged, on cumulative annual purpercent chases of shoe products, figured separately, from 10 percent to 12 and shoe findings in 14 grad ua ted steps for such purchases of shoe products ranging from $40 000 to $400 000 and over; and thereby in effect directly 01' indirectly reduced prices charged favored customers to a substantially lower amount than those charged other customers- Discriminated in price between different purchasers of its said shoe products of like grade and quality by sellng the same to some of its shoe finder its said eust.omers, including, customers at. higher prices than to other of among those thus favored, many who were engaged, in their various trading areas, in the resale of said products in competition with other shoe finders who purchased such products from it, and who were not thus favored: Consent Settlement 50 F. T. C. Held, 'l' ha t such acts and practices, under the circumstances set forth, were in violation of the provisions of subsec. (a) of See. 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act.

Before lJr. TV illiam L. Pack hearing examiner. lJ r. James I. Rooney and lJ r. James S. K elaher for the Commission. D. for respondent. Pheiffer eX TV eaver of Washington, CONSENT SETTLEMENT 1 Pursuant to the provisions of an Act of Congress entitled "An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopo- Jies, and for other purposes " approved October 15, 1914 (Clayton , 1936Act), as amended by an Act of Congress approved June 19 (Hobin son-Patman Act), the Federal Trade Commission, on the 9th day of September, 1952, issued and subsequently served its complaint Oil the respondent named in the caption herein, charging it with violation of subsection (a) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended. The respondent, desiring that this proceeding be disposed of by the Com- the consent settlement procedure provided in Rule V of mi,'sion s Rules of Practice, solely for the purposes of this proceeding. any review thereof, and the enforcement of the order consented to aml conditioned upon the Commission s acceptance of the consent answer to said com- settlement hereinafter set forth, and in lieu of plaint heretofore fied and which, upon acceptance by the Commissioll of this settlement, is to be withdrawn from the record, hereby: 1. Admits all the jurisdictional allegations set forth in the complaint.

2. Consents that the Conunission may entcr the matters hereinafter set forth as its findings as to the facts, conclusion and order to cease in consenting toand desist. It is understood that the respondent, the Conunission s entry of said findings as to the facts, conclusion and order to cease and desist, specifically refrains from admitting or denying that it has engaged in any of the acts or practices stated therein to be in violation of law or that such acts and practices, if eng:tgc(l in, would be in violation of law. 3. Agrees that this consent settlement may be set aside in whole or in IJ:l't under the conditions and in the manner provided in paragraph (1' of Rule V of the Commission s Rules of Practice. 1 Tile Commission s "Notice" announcing' and promulgating the consent settlement as published herewith, fonows :

The consent settlement tendered by the parties in this proceeding, a copy of which is served herewith, was accepted by the Commission on July 29, 1953, and ordered entered of record as the Commission s findings as to the facts, conclusion, and order in disposition of this proceeding.

The time for filing report of compliance pursuant to the aforesaid order runs. from the date of service hereof.

Commissioner Howrey not participating and Commissioner Mason dissenting. SULLIVAN RUBBER CORP. 151 149 J;'indings The admitted jurisdictional facts, the statement of the acts and practices which the Commission had reason to believe were unlawful the conclusion based thereon, and the order to cease and desist, all of which respondent consents may be entered in final disposition of this proceeding, are as follows:

CONrMISSloN S FINDINGS AS TO TIn FACTS PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent O'Sullivan Rubber Corporation is a Virginia corporation with its principal offce and place of business located at 'Winchester, Virginia. Said respondent also does business under the trade name and style " Sullivan Rubber Corporation Laing, Harrar and Chamberlain Division " with principal place of business located at 1:35 Hudson Street, New York, New York. PAR. 2. Respondent is now and has been for many years last past principally engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of a line of rubber and composition heels and soles and other supplies and materials used in the shoe repair industry, and hereinafter referred to as shoe products. Said respondent, through its Laing, Harrar and Chamberlain Division, is also engaged in the wholesale distribution of machinery, equipment and supplies used in the repair and maintenance of shoes and the operation of shoe repair shops, and hereinafter referred to as shoe findings.

Said respondent sells said shoe products to shoe Immufaeturers and sells both shoe products and shoe findings nationally to wholesalers of shoe repair materials, known generally as shoe finders. Said shoe finders resell respondent's shoe products and shoe findings to shoe repairmen, retail shoe stores, and to retailers of shoe repair and maintenance materials.

PAR. 3. Respondent, causes said shoe products, when sold, to be transported from the place of manufacture at IVinchester, Virginia and causes said shoe findings, when sold, to be transported from the point of origin in New York, New York, to purchasers thereof located in various other States of the United States and in the District of Columbia. There is and has been at all times herein mentioned a continuous current of trade and commerce in said products across State lines between respondent's factory and the purchasers thereof. Said products are sold and distributed for use, consumption, and resale within the various States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

PAR. 4. In the course and conduct of its business as aforesaid, respondent is now and during the times herein mentioned has been in substantial competition with other corporations and firms engaged in the business of manufacturing or selling shl)e products and shoe __ ___ _ 152 FEDERAL TRADE COJ\1JVIISSION DECISIONS Findings 50 . T. C. findings in commerce between and among the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia. as PAR. 5. Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business, , dis-hereinbefore set forth, has been since July 1, 1949, and now is criminating in price between different purchasers of its shoe products and shoe findings of like grade and quality by selling said products to e of its shoe finder customers at higher prices than to other of its shoe finder customers.

PAR. 6. The discriminations in price referred to in paragraph 5 hereof have been and now are effected pursuant to respondent' cumulative volume discount plan whereby it grants discounts, rebates or allowances from its list prices on shoe findings and from its net selling prices on shoe products (list prices less regular trade discount of 28 percent) based upon the customer s cumulative total of purchases of shoe products and shoe findings during one year. Said cumulative volume discount plan has the net effect, either directly or indirectly, of reducing prices charged favored customers to a substantially lower amount than respondent charges other of its customers for products of Jike grade and quality.

Effective July 1 , 1949, and continuing thereafter to April 1950 respondent, pursuant to its cumulative volume discount plan, granted discounts, rebates or allowances based upon the customer s cumulative total of purchases of shoe products and shoe findings combined, in accordance with the following schedule:

Cumulative annual purchases: Percent Less than $:\ 000- ---- None 000 but less than $5 000--__ ,- 1 $5,000 but less than $7 500__ -- 2 500 but less than $10,000__ $10 000 but less than $15 000__ - 3 $15 000 but less than $20 000_____ ------- 3'h $20 000 but less than $25 000----_--- - 4 $25 000 but less than $35 000_ ------- 4'h $35 000 and over__ - 5 Effective in April 1950, respondent modified the foregoing plan by adding thereto extra discounts, rebates or allowances for larger volume purchases in accordance with the following schedule; Cumulative annual purchases of shoe products: Percent $35,000 but less than $45 000-- $45 000 but less than $55 000--_____- ,-- 6 $55,000 but less than $65 000--------------- $65 000 but less than $75,000-- --- 7 $75 000 but less than $85 000__----__---- $85 000 but less than $95,000-- ------------------ 8 $95 000 but less than $105 000______- $105 000 and over_ -- 9 _____________________________ _ ___________________________________ SULLIVAN RUBBER CORP. 153 149 Findings Purchasers qualifying for the foregoing extra discounts, rebates or allowances on shoe products were automatically granted a discount rebate, or allowance or 5 percent on their purchases of shoe findings. Effective July 1, 1951, respondent again revised its cumulative volume discount plan and since said date has granted discounts, rebates, 01' allowances in accordance with the following schedule: Cumulative annual purchases on shoe products and shoe findings up to $50,000. On shoe findings the discount, rebate, or allowance is half that of the shoe prodnets rate as determined by the combined volume: Shoe products percent Less than $3,000__- --- None $ 3 000 but less than $ 5 000n_.___------- ----___n__ -- 1 $ 5,000 but less than $ 7 500_-- _h_ _n____n -___n_-- 2 $ 7, 500 but less than $10 000__----nn_ __nn--________n 2'1 $10 000 but less than $12 500----n--n______-------- _-n-__n_- 3 $12 500 but less than $15 000__n__n___--_nn_n-- n_- 3% $15 000 but less than $20 000_---- nn--_ __n___--n_- 4 $20 000 but less than $25.000n_-_____--__n___n_n___ n____n__- 5 $25 000 but less than $30 000_------------ _n______- 6 $30 000 but less than $35 000--_-------------_ _n--_____-------- 7 $35 000 but less than $40 000nnn________n_n_n________n_____- 8 $40 000 but less than $45,000--_-__-_n _nn_n_ $45,000 but less than $50 000n_____nn_n_--_____ ____n______ n'h $50,000 - - -- - - - 10 After combined cumulative annual purchases of shoe products and shoe findings reach $50,000, the discount. rebate, or allowance on shoe findings remains at 5 percent and discounts, rebates or allowances are granted on the cumulative annual purchases of shoe products figured separately, in accordance with the following schedule:

P CTcen t $ 40,000 but less than $ 45,000-____n____h___n_-- __n_ $ 45 000 but less than $ 55 000--___--_n_ ------ 1014 $ 50 000 but less than $ 55 000__------ -______n_--__--___n____ 10'1 $ 55.000 but less than $ 60 000------------------------------------ 10%, $ 60 000 but less than $ 65 000n--__--___n_--_n_nn__n-_____-- 11 $ 65 000 but less than $ 70 000---n_--___n--n_--_nn_n___--__- 1114 $ 70,000 but less than $ 75 000--_.__------------------------------- 111;( $ 75 000 bnt less than $ 80 000---_u_--______nn____n__--_ - 11 $ 80 000 but less than $ 90,000---___n_-n----_n_ -- 12 $ no,ooo but less than $100 000_ -------------- 1214 $100 000 but less than $200,000----------- n- 12'1 $200 000 but less than $300,000_--____----------------------------- 15 $300,000 but less than $400 000___n______n______----------------- 17 $400 000 and over -- 17'1 Many of the favored customers receiving the benefits of the aforesaid discriminations in price are competitively engag,ed in the resale of said products with other shoe findings who purchase shoe products and shoe findings from respondent and who are not favored, within Order 50 F. T. C.

thegagedvarious trading areasinin whichbusiness.said favoted customers are en- PAR. 7. The effect of such discriminations in price stated herein may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in the lines of commerce in which respondent and its customers are respectively engaged; or to injure, destroy or prevent competition with respondent or with customers thereof who receive the benefits of such discriminations.

COMMISSION !; CONCLUSION The foregoing acts and practices of said respondent as set forth herein are in violation of the provisions of subsection (a) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, approved June 19 , 1936 (U. S. Title 15, Sec. 13). ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST It is O1'dered That respondent O'Sullivan Rubber Corporation, a di-corporation, its offcers, agents, representatives and employees, rectly or through any corporate or other device, in or in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of rubber and composition heels and soles and other supplies and materials used in the shoe repair industry and other products known commercially as findings in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the aforesaid Clayton Act do forthwith cease and desist from discriminating in price, directly or indirectly, between different purchasers of said products: (1) By selling such products of like grade and quality to any purchaser at prices lower than those granted other purchasers who in fact compete with the favored purchaser in the resale or distribution of such products;

(2) By selling, in competition with others, such products of like grade and quality to any purchaser at prices lower than to any other purchasers: Provided, however, that the foregoing shall not be construed to preclude respondent from defending absolutely any alleged violation of this provision of the Order by showing that none of the products sold at lower prices were resold by the purchaser at the same level of distribution as were the products sold by respondent at higher pnces.

For the purpose of comparison, the term "price" as used in this order takes into account discounts, rebates or allowances, volume or otherwise, and other terms and conditions of sale. It is further ordered That respondent shall, within sixty (60) days after the service upon it of this order, fie with the Commission a 1'e- SULLIVAN RUBBER CORP. 155 149 Order port in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with this order.

SULLIVAN RUBBER CORPORATION (Sgd) By H. DOUGLAS WEAVER (Title) Secretary. (Sgd) H. DOUGLAS WEAVER Oounsel for Respondent.

PHEIFFER & WEAVER.

Date: March 4, 1953.

The foregoing COJ1oellt settlement is hereby accepted by the Federal Trade Commission and ordered entered of record this 29th day July 1953.

Commissioner Howrey not participating and Commissioner Mason dissenting.

Syllabus 50 F. T. C.