Dictograph Products, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF INC. DlCTOGRAPH PRODUCTS, VIOLATION OF THECONSENT SETTLEMENT IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AC' Aug. , 1953 Dooleet 6095. Complaint, Apr 2-4, 1953-Decision, Where a corporation engaged in the manufacture and in the competitive interstate sule and distribution of its "Acoustic on" hearing aids; in advertising the same through radio aud t.television commercials, and in newspapers and periodicals, circulars, pamphlets, bulletins, and other advertising llledia including newspaper mats, reprints of advertisements used by it, radio and t.television scripts, circulars, pamphlets, and hulletins furnished by it to its distributors, who used the same t.o advertise said product, it paying a portion of said distributors' advertising expenses; directly or by implication (a) Falsely represented that the Government, through'the U. S. Public Health Service, had lllade an investigation of bearing aids; (b) Falsely represented that. a booklet ent.itled "D. S. Government Expose of Hearing Aids" was pnbJished by the Government. and contained a report by it on such prouucts;

(c) Falsely represented that as a result of such investigation the Government said all onc-performance hearing aids were failures; when in fact the Government had neit.her held that such type or any other class of hearing aids were failures; and (d) Falsely represented that with the exception of its own product no hearing aids had been improved in recent years and that only its product gave satisfactory hearing help; and (e) IPalsely represented that its said aids were recommended by the Government: Helll That such acts and practices, under the circumstances set fort.h, were aU to the prejudice and injury of the public and of competitors and constituted unfair methods of competition in commerce and unfair and deceptive acts and practices therein.

Before Mr. Ja1ne8 A. Purcell hearing examiner. Mr. Ed1vard F. Downs for the Commission. Mr. Theodore F. Ton1conogy, of N ew York City, for respondent. CONSENT SETTLE;'IENT' Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Federal Trade Commission on April 24, 1953, issued and subsequently served its complaint on the respondent named in the caption hereof 1. 'The Commission s "Notice" announcing and promulgating the consent settlement as publisher1 herewith, follows:

The consent settlement tendered by the parties in this proceeding, a copy of which is served herewith, was accepted by the Commission 011 August 5" 1953, and orr1eled entercll of record as the Commission s findings as to the facts, conclusion, and order in dispositipn of this proceeding.

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

,, \ .

Findings 50 F. T. C.

charging it with the use of unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of the provisions of said Act.

The respondent desiring that this proceeding be disposed of by the eon sent settlement procedure provided in Rule V of the Commission Hules of Practice, solely for the purposes of this proceeding, and any review thereof, and the enforcement of the order consented to, and conditioned upon the Commission s acceptance of the consent settlement hereinafter set forth and in lieu of the answer to said complaint hereby:

1. Admits all 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 to cease and desist. It is understood that the respondent, in eonsenting to the Commission 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 la w.

8. Agrees that this consent settlement nmy be set aside in whole or in part under the conditions and in the manner provided in 1mragraph (f) of Hule V of the Commission s Rules of Practice. The admitted jurisdictional fads, the statement of the acts and practices ' 1ieh the Commission had reason to believe were unlawi'ul the conclusion based thereon, and the order to cease and desist, al! of which the respondent eonsents may be entered herein in final disposi tion of this proceeding, are as follows:

FINDINGS AS TO TIm FACTS PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Dictograph Products, Tnc., is a corporation, organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of K ew York, having it.s principal oilce and place of business and its factory at .Tamaiea, Long Island, New York. PAR. 2. Respondent. is now and -for several years last. past. has been engaged in the manufacture, distribution and sale of hearing aids. Such hearing aids are advert.ised and sold by respondent. under t.he trade name "Acousticon.

Respondent causes flld has caused said hearing aids when sold be transported from it.s place of business iu the State of New York to purchasers thereof located in various other States of the United States and in the District of Columbia ancl at all times mentioned herein has maintained a course of trade in said hearing aids in com- Inerce among and between the various States of the United States .

DICTOGRAPH PRODUCTS , INC. 181 1 7 Findings :end in the Distric.t of Columbia. Respondent's volume of business in said hearing aids in such commerce is and has been substantial. PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of its business, respondent has been and is now engaged in substantial competition with other corporations and with firms, partnerships and individuals likewise engaged in the manufacture, distribution and sale 'of hearing aids in commerce between and among the various States of the United States, and in the District of Columbia.

PAR. 4. In the course and conduct of its business as aforesaid, and for the purpose of inducing the purchase of its hearing aids, in commerce :es "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act respondent has lnade certain statements and representations by radio and television commercial announcements, by advertisements in newspapers and magazines, and by circulars, pamphlets, bulletins and other advertising media. Said statements and representations were also contained in newspaper mats, reprints of advertisements used respondent, radio and television scripts, circulars, pamphlets and bulletins furnished by respondent to its distributors who used them to a(lvertise respondent' s hearing aids with respondent paying a portion of such distributors' advertising expenses. Among and typical, but not alj inclusive, of such statements and representations were the foJIowin Thp vd101e story of the U. S. Government' s investigation and expm;;( of hearing nnd h(-nl'in . :lids is yours-absolutely free- in a new 20-page booklet 11ublished b:v Acousticon Hesenl'ch Laboratories.

DON' 1' BUY A Picture of booklet HEARING AID entitled "U. S. TJ:\TIL YOU Government Expose READ THIS FREE BOOK! of Hearing Aids Sa\' e melley-up to $200! Save trouble, disappointment! Protect your hearing! Get the facts-know the truth about hearing aids. Read what. the UNITEJD STATES GOVERNMENT says about them.

You can now read this astounding story of the Government' s investigation flJH1 expose of hearing aids.

Read how the U. S. Govel'llent branded one-performance hearing aids as appallng failures. Head what the Government declared 1IU8t be done t.o give trnly scientific help to the hard of hearing. Read the 8-point program recommended by the Government. . . .

Only ACOUSTICON did the job recommended by the U. S. GOv 1',UNMENT to give yon Scientific Flcaring IIelp! The United Stater Public Health Service-g-ave tbe hearing aid industry a clear-cut., eight-point program that had to be followed. . . The vital program laid down by the U. S. Public Health Service was followed by onlJl one hearing aid manufacturer-ACOUSTICO:\. Findings 50 F. r. The conditions revealed by the U. S. Public Health Service are stil true todaywith the single exception of Acoust.icon, who alone fulfilled the Goyernment"s recommendations.

For only $69.50 you can now have t.he kind of sdentific hearing help recommended by the U. S. Government.

Your Government Recommended ,!' hls Hearing Aid Be Built. Aeousticon-and only Aeoustieon-is equipped to give you the help you need as recommended by The U. S. Public Health Service. PAR. 5. By means of the aforesaid statements and representations and others 01' similar import not herein specifically set out, respondent has represented directly or by implication that the United States Government, through the United States Public Health Service made an investigation of hearing aids; that a booklet entitled t!. S. Government Expose of Hearing Aids" was published by the United States Government, and contained a report by the Government on hearing aids; that as a result of tlJe aforesaid investigation the United States Government said alj one-performance hearing aids were appalling failures; that with the exception of respondent's hearing aids no hearing aids have been improved in recent years; that only respondent' hearing aids give yon satisfactory IJearing help; and that respondent' hearing aids are recommended by the United States Government. PAIL ti. The Joregoing statements and representations are false deceptive and misleading, and constitute disparagement of competitive products. In truth and in fact, the United States Government has not made an investigation of hearing aids through the United States Public Health Service or otherwise. The United States Govel'ment did not publish the booklet entitled "U. S. Government Expose of Hearing Aids" nor does said booklet contain a report on hearing aids by the Unitell States Government or any of its branches. The United States Government has never held that all one-performance hearing aids or n.ny other class of he lring aids were failnres. ' Many hearing aids, other than respondent's have been improved in recent years, and many of them give as much satisfaction to the hard of hearing as do respondent' s hearing aids. Respondent's hearing aids have not been recommended by the lTnited States Government or any branch thereof. PAR. 7. The use by respondent of the aforesaid false, deceptive and misleading statements and representations, has had the capacity and tendency to mislead and deceive a substantial portion of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said statements and representations were true and into the purchase of substantial quantities of respondent' s hearing aids in preference to the hearing aids sold by competitors of respondent. As a result thereof, trade has been unfairly diverted to respondent from its competitors. In consequence DICTOGRAPH PRODUCTS , INC. 183 179 Order thereof, substantial injury has been done to respondent' s competitors in commerce.

CONCLUSION The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent, as herein found, are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondent' s competitors and constitute unfair methods of competition in commerce and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. ORDER TO CEASE AKD DESIST I t is ordered That respondent, Dictograph Products, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of hearing aids in commerce, do forthwith cease and desist from representing directly or by implication: (a) That the United States Government, through the United States Public Health Service or any other branch of the Government made an investigation of hearing aids.

(b) That booklets published by respondent are published by the United States Government or any branch thereof. (c) That booklets published by respondent contain a report on hearing aids by the U. S. Government or any branch thereof. (d) That the United States Government or any branch thereof has brandccl any class of hearing aids as failures. (e) That said hearing aids are the only ones on the market that are satisfactory.

(f) That said hearing aids are recommended by the United States Government or any branch thereof.

(g) That competitors' hearing aids have not been improved in recent years.

It is further ordered That respondent shall, within 60 days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with this order.

DICTOGRAPH PRODUCTS , INC.

(Sgd) STANLEY OSSERMAN St.anley Osserman, Chairman of Board of Directors and General Manager.

Date 7/22/53.

The foregoing consent settlement is hereby accepted by the Federal Trade Commission and ordered entered of record on this the 5th day of August 1953.

184 FEm:RAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Sy lla bns 50 F. T. C. THE MATTER OF BEKJAMIN D. RITHOLZ ET AL. T. A. DR. RlTHOLZ & SONS COMPANY, ETC.

DECISION IN REGARD TO THE ALLJ; GED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Doelcet 57.5.9. Cornpla.il1t, Mar. 1950-Deeision, Au.'. , 1953 Where eight partners engaged in t.he int.erstat.e sale and distribution of sunglasses or goggles and field glasses, in advertising their saiel products in various 11lugazines and periodicals- (a) Falsely represented the allo gold content of the fnllnes, mountings, and ot.her metal parts of their sunglasses, marked "gold filled " as 1/10/12 karat and that the frames would not tarnish;

When in fact. such content was less t.han 1/20th of the entire product and was below the Bureau of Standards commercial standard which provides that no artie1e having an alloy gold content of less t.han 1/20th of t.he entire product. shah be marlre(I "gold filled " and the (leposit of gold on the frames mountings, and other metal parts of their sunglasses, thus marked was not of any definite quality Or substantial thickness, and consisted only of suffcieut gold t.o impart. t.hereto a gold color; and said frames would tarnish; (b) Falsely represent.ed that the lenses of their sunglasses were "ground and polished" and that they "would not break" ; (c) Falsely represented t.hat. t.their sunglasses regularly sold at retail at prices as high as $5 or more ami were of a $15 or $8.50 value ami t.hat, when offered for sale at. a price of $3. , const.it.uted the biggest. sunglass bargaiu in An1erica;

V\Then in fact they were of a type and quality that regularly retailed at from $1.50 to $3 ;

(d) Falsely represent.ed t.hat tl,e frames and mountings of their sunglasses were mannfact\1ed by Bausch & Lomb, American Optical Company, Or Shnron Optical Company;

The facts being tlwt a significant number of their said products were not manufactured by said concerns;

(e) falsely described certain pro(Iucts offered by them as "Binoculars When in fact they were not binoculars but field glasses which, unlike the others are not. eqnipped with prisms;

(n Falsely represented that t.their said product eliminated light loss due to surface refiection by 50 percent and that the field of vision thereof was 150 yards at a distance of 1 000 yards;

When in fael the light loss due to surface reflection in their said glasses was reduced not more than 15 percent and the field of vision was 125 yards at said distance;

(17) Falsely represented that their said field glasses were war surplus and a $10 value;

H cld 'that such aet s and practices were all to the prejudice and injury of the public and constituted unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce. DR. RITHOLZ & SON'S CO., ETC. 185 Decision BBfore illt. A bneT' E. Lipscomb hearing examiner. 311'. J. R. Phillips, J?. , Mr'. (horge 31. Martin and 11T. Fr'ederik J. JlcJia7lu8 for the Commission.

31T. Benjamin D. Ritlwlz; of Chicago, Ill., for respondents. 31T. Fmnk E. Oettlernan of Chicago, Ill., also representing Clark Optical Co., Dr. Ritholz & Sons Co. ancl Dr. Ritholz Optical Co. DECISION OF THE CO;lunssIoN Pursuant to Rule XXII of the Commission s Rules of Practice and lls set forth in the Commission s "DBcision of the Commission and Order to File Report of Compliance " datBcl August G, 1953, the initial decision in the instant matter of hearing Bxaminer Abner E. Lipscomb as set out as follows, became on that date the decision of the Commis- Sion.

IJ\ITIAL DECISION BY ABNER E. LIPSCO;lib, HEAIUNG EXAffIIN'ER Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act the Federal Trade Commission, on March 28, 1950, issued and subsequently served its complaint in this proceeding upon the respondents named in the caption hereof, charging them with the use of unfair and cleceptive acts and practices in commerce in violation of thb provisions of said Act. Thereafter a hearing was held in Chicago, Illinois, on Tune 13, 1950, at which a stipulation as to the facts was agreed upon between counsel supporting the complaint and respondent Benjamin D. Ritholz, acting as counsel for all respondents, which was then incorporated into the record. Thereafter, upon motion of counsel supporting the complaint, said stipulation was, by order of the hearing examiner dated .July 23, 1952, stricken from the record, which order was, upon appeal by thb respondents, confirmed by the Commission on October 8, 1952. Subsequently Frank E. Gettleman entered his appearance as counsel for the respondents, and agreed with counsel supporting the complaint upon another stipulation as to the facts which was submitted to the hearing examiner and by his order incorporated into the record as of Ml1Y 14, 1953. Under the terms of this stipulation, it was agreed between counsel that the facts therein stated might be taken as the facts in this proceeding in lieu of evidence in support of the allegations of the complaint or in opposition thereto and that the hearing examiner might, without the filing of proposed findings as to the facts and conclusions or the presentation of oral argument thereon, proceed to issue his initial decision disposing of this proceeding. After the submission of said stipulation, counsel for the respondents filed a motion requesting that the complaint be dismissed as to Clark Optical Company and respondents Dr. Ritholz & Sons 186 FEDERAL TRADE COM.\IISSION DECISIONS Findings 50 F. T. C. Company and Dr. Ritholz Optical Company, to which counsel supporting the complaint fied an answer. Now the hearing examiner, having duly considered the record herein, including the stipulation as to the facts, motion to dismiss and answer thereto, finds that this proceeding is in the interest of the public and makes the following findings as to the facts, conclusions drawn therefrom, and order. FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS , J\forris I. Ritholz, PARAGRAI'H 1. Respondents Benjamin D. Ritholz Samuel J. Ritholz Sylvi:1 Ritholz, Fannie Ritholz, Sophie Hitholz, Jacob Bedno (erroneously designated in the complaint as acob llitholz), :1nd Anna Ritholz Bedno are individu:1ls, trading as copartners, under the names Dr. Ritholz & Sons Company and Dr. Ritholz Optical Company, by which names the said individuals and copartners are known and under which their business is principally conducted at their headquarters and principal place of business at 1148-1160 West Chicago Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. Said respondents have :1lso traded individually and as copartners under the additional trade names of Midwest Scientific Company, Clark Optical Company, Chicago Goggle Sales Company, Regent Optical Company, Parker Optical Company, Veterans' Emporium, and Goertz Company.

The use of the trade name Parker Optical Company by respondents was discontinued in 1949. The use of the trade name Veterans' Emporium by respondents was c'iscontinued in July 1948. The use of the trade name Goertz Company by respondents was discontinued in August 1949. The use of the trade name Chicago Goggle Sales Company by respondents was discontinued in July 1952. The use of the trade name Regent Optical Company by respondents was dis-continued in A pri11952. Donald A. Ritholz and Vera R Ritholz were never members of the partnership referred to above.

PAR. 2. The respondents, except Donald A. Ritholz a.nd Vera R. Ritholz, are now, and have been for more than 3 years last past, engaged in the sale and distribution of sunglasses or goggles, and field glasses. Said respondents cause their products, when sold, to be transported from their said place of business in the State of Illnois to purchasers thereof located in various other States of the United States and in the District of Columbia. Said respondents maintain and at all times mentioned herein have maintained, a course of trade in said products in commerce between and among the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia. The volume of business in such commerce is substantial.

. . .

DR. RITHOLZ & SO?\S CO., ETC. 187 184 Findings PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of their business and for the purpose of inducing the sale of their said sunglasses, goggles and field glasses, said respondents have made numerous statements and representations with respect thereto in advertisements inserted in various magazines and periodicals, among and typical of which are the following:

SURPLUS SALE! JUST RECEIVED ANOTHER SHIPMEi\T OF 8 000 BRAND NEW AIR CORPS TYPE SUN GLASSES Picture of a man I hearing glasses $3.

Every pair manufactured to exacting optical st.andards: 14 Karat Gold Plated frames with Perloid Sweat Bar and adjustable rocking nose pads.

Lenses are sage green rncniscus curved wit.h ground and polished surfaces.

Large A via tion type, priced for a quick sell-out. Only 8,000 left. Buy now while they last! Don t pass up biggest Sun-Glass bargain in America! DR. RI'I'HOLZ OP'l' ICAL CO.

Main Omee and Factory 1148-1160 W. Chicago Ave.

Said advertisement was also disseminated by respondents through the use of their trade name:

VETERANS EMPORIUM Dept. D2 1148-1160 W. Chicago Ave.

Chicago 22, Ill.

TV AR SURPLUS 0(J() BRAND NEW AIR CORPS TYPE SUN GLASSES With Genuine BA USCH & LOMB 'Val' Surplus Comfort Cable Temples ,y 188 FICDEUAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS indings 50 I r. C.

picture of a pair f glasses I Picture of a mall wearing glasses ase $3. I PictUl:-:r I for glasses EASILY \VOHTIl $D.

Every pail' manufactured to eXHetiug optical standnrds! 24 Karat Gold Plated frames with Pyralin Sweat Bar and adjustaule rOcking nose pads.

I..cases are sage green meuiscus eUl'ved with ground and polished surfaces.

Larg-e Aviation type, priced for a quick sell-out. Only 13 000 left. Buy now while tlwy last! Don t. pass up higgest Snn-GI:lrs hargain in America! \'ET man' H EMI'()HlU Devt. D 1 1148-1100 Y\!. Chicago Ave.

Chicago 22, Ill.

Best u. S. Army Air Force Type Buy Under SUN GLASSESThe Sun glass:oe:;

I, Pietul'cand a caseof a for.vail'theof glasses 1\1en s find Genuine Leatherette women 8 sizes Case Included FOH IERLY $8. 50 VALUE Super'- Semmtionally Priced at only - $1.88 Postpald Cool Green lIlpniscus curyed polished lenses.

"Gold Plater! ndjustable frames *Lf uses ,meet spe( ifieation of U. S. Uov Bureau of Standards.

CHICAGO GOGGL SALES CO. , Dept 100 DR. RlTHOLZ & SONS CO. , ETC. 189 184 Findings MAKE UP TO $10 ON EVERY SALE! AIR Picture of a Corps SUN ma:-I wearing glass TYPE GLASSES Picture of a pair of lasses $5. SELLS EVEHYWHERBJ UP TO 815 and l\ORE! Just released for civiliau use! Here are genuine 12 Karat gold filled, Air Corps Type SUN GOGGLES complete with "Motber of Peal'" sweat bar, brow rest and rocking pads, scjcntiHc ray-absorbent "No Glare" ground and poUshed sage green lenses, dropped before curving, and self- adjusting comfort cable ear pieces. Send for your sample pair of these fine Sun Goggles-only $5. , postage pre- , pluspair!. Or send no money. .Jusl. deposit SG.OO with your own postman postag )onr money back if not delight.ed. l\UDWEST SCIENTIFIC CO. Dept. (jl, 1148 l1GO W. Chicago Ave. Chicago 22, Ill.

1/10/12 KARA'!, GOLD FILLBJD Ant CORPS TYPE S17;, GLASSES Genuine 1/1()12K Pink Gold Filed * " * $8.95 . . . ground and polished lenses.

I-ARD-AS-HOCK Sun Glasses hard as the Rock of Gibraltar * . * Guaranteed to withstand shock and strain Without Breaking. Golc Plat.ed Gold Plat.ed 12K Golc Filed.

Please do not compare these fine genuine 12K Gold Filed Sun Glasses with Cheap inferior nickel or gold plated goggles * " . all our sun glasses are fully warranted to be genuine 12K PI1\K gold filled, guaranteed against tarnishing aud to stand acid.

Findings 50 F. T. C.

Scoop! WAR SURPLUS SUN GLA;ES BRAND NEW WAR SURPLUS SUN GLASSES 24 Karat Gold Plated 136 115 Pairs GI frames purchased from War Assets Administration, U. S. Sales Depot (Sales Doe. #0698178). Manufactured for U. S. Army Medical Department by leading manufacturers; Bausch & Lomb Opt.ical Co., American Optical Co., and Shuron Optical Co. to meet. U. S. Army Specifications. Lenses are sage green meniscus curved, conform to specifications of :'ational Bureau of St.andards (CS-79-40). 'these Sun Glasses are 24 Karat Gold-plat.ed . * * SURPLUS SALE! Only $3.49 * * "

Easily worth $9.95 " * " 24K Gold PJated Frame. Lenses are sage green meniscns curved with ground and polished surfaces' " * Biggest Sun Glass Value in America.

Picture of Binoculars WITH COATED LENSES AND INTERPUPILLARY AD.TUSTMENT $10.00 Value only $4.

Plus 20% I Piet.ure of Binoculars Fed. Tax Sensation of the year! Many features of high priced Binocnlars. Heavy duty, SEND NO MONEYall-purpose; precision. Carrying case, shoulder straps. pay Postman pins charges. Send remitt.anee with order and we send postpaid. Ideal gift. Money back if not satisfied.

GOJ;jUTZ CO., Dept. Gi, 1148 W. Chicago Ave., Chicago 22, Ill. LIKO BINOCULARS Coated Lenses reduces glare, eliminates light loss due to surface reflection by 50% or more.

DR. RITHOLZ & SONS CO. , ETC. 191 184 Findings WAR SURPLUS SUN GLASSES 24 K Gold Plated With Hard as Rock Non-brea1mble Lenses.

MAKE UP TO $10.00 ON EVERY SALE Picture of a Man Air Corps SUN Type GLASSES $5. SELL EVERYWHERE up Picture of Glasses I to $15.00 and MORE! MIDWEST SCIENTIFIC CO. Dept. 61- 1148-1160 W. Chicago Ave., Chicago 22, Ill.

. * * Sun Glasses $1.88 Postpaid' * . Cool Green meniscus polished lenses * . * Lenses meet specifications of U. S. Government Bureau of Standards. Binoculars $4.98 " . * $10.00 Value.

LIKO BINOCULARS FIELD OF VISION The lenses of Liko Binoculars are scientifically ground and polished in order to afford the greatest magnification and field of vision. The unusually large 45 mm. objecti ye lenses give a wider field depth of vision, for object.s close by or at a greater distance. The field of vision in the Liko Binoculars is 150 yards which means that at a distance of 1 000 yards, an area of 150 yards in width is plainly visible.

PAR. 4. Samuel J. Ritholz is an active partner in the above-described partnership, and is licensed to practice the profession of optometry under and by virtue of tbe laws of the State of Illinois, and is consequently entitled to use the title Doctor. PAR. 5. The alloy gold content of tbe frames, mountings, and other metal parts of respondents' sunglasses marked " gold filled" is less than 1/20th of the. entire product and is below the Bureau of Standards' commercial standard, which provides that no article having alloy gold content of less than 1/20th of the entire product shall be marked "gold fined.

192 ;j)ERAL TRADE COMMISSlOK DECISIO:NS Findings 50 F. T. C.

PAR. 6. The deposit of gold on the frames, mountings, and other metal parts of respondents' sunglasses marked " gold plated" is not of any definite quality or substantial thickness and consists only of sufficient gold to impart to the frames, mountings and other metal parts a gold color. The frames of said slUlglasses will tarnish. l' AR. 7. The lenses of the sunglasses sold by respondents, which are represented to be " grouud and polished " are not in fact ground and polished. The lenses of said sunglasses will break. PAR. 8. The sunglasses sold by respondents are of a type and quality that J'egularly retail at a price ranging from $1.50 to $3. The said sunglasses do not regularly sell at retail at prices as high as 85 or more, nor are said sunglasses of $15 or $8.50 values. The said sunglasses, when offered for sale at a price of $3. , do not constitute the biggest sunglass bargain in America.

Em. D. The frames and mountings of a significant number of Sll1glasses sold by respondents ,veri. not rrmnufactured by Bausch & Lomb American Optical Company, or Shuron Optical Company. PAR. 10. Thc product "Liko Binoculars " advertised and ofiered for sale by respondents, is not binoculars, but field glasses. Field glasses differ from binoculars in the manner in which they are constructed. Binoculars are ,equipped with prisms, and field glasses do not contain prisms. The product sold by respondents as "Liko Binoculars" contains no prisrns. The light loss due to surince reflection in respondents' glasses is reduced not more than 15 percent. The field of vision of respondents' field glasses is 12:) yards at a distance of 1 000 yards. The field glasses sold by respondents are not war surplus ami aro not a $10 value.

PAH. 11. Benjamin D. Hitholz and MOl'is 1. Ritholz are veterans of 'World IVaI' PAR. 12. The respondent Benjamin D. Ritholz, doing business as Clark Optical Company, was, as is alleged in Paragraphs 8 , 9, and 10 of the complaint, engaged in the sale and advertising for SRII. of spcctades, and in connection therewith furnished customers with certain devices known as "Self- Test Optometer" and "Cardboard Eye Tester." On May 21 , 1951, Benjamin D. Ritholz, as owner of Clark Optical Company in answer to R complaint issued by the Post Offce executed an "Affdavit of Discontinuance.

PAR. 1:3. The use by respondents, other than Donald A. Hitholz and Vera H. Ritholz, of the foregoing false, misleading, and deceptive statements and representations has had the capacity and tendency to mislead and decei VI. a subs! ant ia! portion of the purchasing public into the erroneous Rnd mistaken belief that said advertisements and repre.sentations were true, resulting in the purchase of respondents products because of such erroneous and mistaken belief. DR. RITHOLZ " SONS CO. , ETC.

181 Order CONCLliSIONS In view of the fact, as herein found, that respondents Donald A. Ritholz and Vera R. Ritholz were never members of the copartnership hereinabove referred to, it is concluded that respondents' motion to dismiss the complaint as to Donald A. Ritholz and Vera R. Ritholz should be granted.

In view of the fact, as herein found, that respondent Samuel J. Ritholz is licensed to practice the profession of optometry under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Illinois, and to use the title Doctor" in connection therewith, it is concluded that the allegation of the complaint relating to respondents' misuse of the title " Doctor or the abbreviation "Dr." has not been proven, and therefore that respondents' motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as it relates thereto should be granted.

In view of the fact, as herein found, that respondent Benjamin D. Ritholz, doing business as Clm'k Optical Company, did, on May 21 " in response to L com-1951 , execute an " Affdavit of Discontinuance plaint issued by the Post Office Departnwnt, concerning the sale and advertising for sale of spectacles, in connection with which said respondent furnished customers with certain devices known as "Self- Test Optometer Lld "Cardboard Eye Tester " it is concluded tlmt there is no further public interest in the continual1 e of the instant , accordingly, it is con-proceeding insofar as it relates thereto; and cluded that respondents' motion to dismiss the complaint as to respondent BenjfLmin D. HithoJz, doing business as Clark Optical Company, should be granted.

In view of the fact, as herein found, that respondents Benjamin D. Hitholz llld Morris 1. Ritholz are veterans of 'Vorld 'Val' it is concluded that the allegation of the complaint that no one of the respondents trading under the name of Veterans Emporinm is a "r veteran of orld vear I or II should be dismissed. It is further concluded that the acts llld practices of respondents with the exceptions hereinabove set forth, are an to the prejudice and inj ury of the public, and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce within the intent and meaning of the FedfCral Trade Commission Act.

ORDER It is ordered That respondents Benjamin D. Hitholz, Morris 1. Ritholz, Samuel .J. HitJlOlz, Sylvia Ritholz, F mnie Hitholz, Sophie H itholz, Jacob 13edno (erroneously designated in the complaint as Jacob Hitholz), and Anna Hithoh Bedno, individually and as copartners trading as Dr. Ritholz & Sons Company, Dr. Ritholz Optical Company, and under other names, their representatives 403443mgRAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Order 50 F. T, C, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device in connection with the offering for sale, sale and distribution of issunglasses, goggles and field glasses in commerce, as "commerce" defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Disseminating or causing to be disseminated, by means of the isUnited States mails or by any means in commerce, as "commerce" a.ny advertisementdefined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, which represents, directly or by implication: a. That the alloy gold content of the frames, mountings and other metal parts of their sunglasses is 1/10/12 Karat or 1/10/12 K, or any other percentage of gold content, unless and until said products actually contain the percentage of gold so represented; b. That their sunglasses are gold plated, when the deposit of gold on the frames, mountings, and other metal parts thereof is not of any definite quality.y and substantial thickness; c. That the frames of their sunglasses wil not tarnish, when the metal parts thereof are of such composition that they wih in fact tarnish' d. That the lenses of their sunglasses are ground and polished, unless and until such is in fact true;

e. That t.he lenses of their sunglasses are nonbreakable, unless and until such is in fact true;

f. That their products are of a type and quality regularly retailing at prices as high as $5 or more, or that such products are of a value of $8. , $10, or $15, or any other specific amount, unless and until such is in fact true;

g. That the frames and mountings of their sunglasses are manufactured by Bausch & Lomb, American Optical Company, Shuron Optical Company, or any other manufacturer, unless and until such frames and mountings are in fact so manufactured; h. That their product designated "I.iko Binoculars " or that product or any substantially similar product designated by any name, is binoculars, unless and until such product is so constructed as to contain pnsms;

i. That their product designated "Liko Binoculars " or that product or any similar product designated by any name, elimimttes light loss due to surface reflection by 50 per cent, or any other percentage, unless "nd until such is in fact true;

j. That the field of vision of their product designated "Liko Binocuais " or of that or any similar product designated by any name, is 50 yards, or an area of 150 yards at a distance of 1 000 yards, or any ther specific area or distance, unless and until such is in fact true; DR. RITHOLZ & SONS CO., ETC. 195 184 Order k. That their products are war surplus, or purchased or received from the Air Corps, Air Force, vear Assets Administration, or other Government agency, unless and until such is in fact true; 2. Disseminating or causing to be disseminated any advertisement by any means, for the purpose of inducing, or which is likely to induce directly or indirectly, the purchase in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, of said products, which advertisement contains any of the representations prohibited in Paragraph 1 hereof.

It is further orde-red That the complaint herein, insofar as it relates to respondents Donald A. Ritholz and Vera R. Ritholz, be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.

It is further order-ed That the complaint herein, insofar as it relates to respondents' use in their trade name or advertising of the title Doctor" or the abbreviation "Dr. " be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.

It is further ordered That the complaint herein, insofar as it relates to respondent Benjamin D. Ritholz trading as Clark Optical Company, be, and the same hereby is, dismissed. It is furth61' ordered That the complaint herein, insofar as it relates to respondents' use of the word " Veterans" in the trade name "Veterans Emporium " or in any other manner relating to respondents' service in the Armed Forces, be, and the same hereby is, dismissed. ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COllIPLIAKCE It is ordered That respondents Benjamin D. Ritholz, Morris 1. Ritholz, Samuel .J. Hitholz, Sylvia Hitholz, Fannie Ritholz, Sophie Ritholz, Jacob Bedno (erroneously designated in the complaint as .Jacob Ritholz), and Ann Hitholz Redno, individualy and as copartners trading as Dr. Ritholz & Sons Company, Dr. Hitholz Optical Company, and under other names, shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist (as required by said declaratory decision and order of August 6, 1953). ( 196 FEDERAL TRADE COMJ'vHSSION DECISIONS Consent Settlement 50 F. T. C, IN THE MAT'I'ER OF ROBERT HALL CLOTHES, INC., ET AI- CONSJcNT SET'TLEJ\IJ,NT J;\ REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLA'l"JON OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COJ\JJIISSJON ACT Docket /1982;, Comp7aint, ilia,! lU.")2-Dcel.'du, , A. 1Ifi. 1.9, 1958 Where a corporation engaged in the opl?l'atioll of two dotlJing factories anet 01H: warehollse, and of nnmerons subsidiary corporations, engaged i1l the operation of many retail clothing stores located in many of the States, and in tlw shipment of" clothing made by it and purchased from others to said retail stores; and three indivic1nals, offccrs thereof; competitively engaged as aforesaid; in newspaper advertisements of their said cluthing, in which they inserted the nmnc of the: l):lrtienlnl' retail sture C'OIu' erned, they paying the cost of pllblication- (a) Falsely represented Hwt the regular pricp for the clothing thus offered were gTeatel' tl1all those prices at 'IYl1kl1 H w'-s !Jeing offered in said adyet'ti nts ;

(b) Falsely represented that bpCHllSP said corporation bad l'edllc' ed tlw 111'ic() of t.he clothing so atlyertised, pUl'chasen; of neh elotlJillg' would save money: when in fact the prices harlnot been reducerl; and (c) Falsely represented tlwt said cOl'IJol'ation s do1lJing' thus nd\'ertisl: d was or a sped fie value which was in pxeess of tlie price ('hargell therefor lJ " it: field That snell acts and pl'nctieps, under the cirCUlllstaIlC'es set forth, ,,,pre all to the J1l'e,iudice and injury of the public and of competitor,., of said corporate respolldent and constituted 11I11'n11' methods of cOlul'etition in COlllnl('l'('P fill unfair and deeeptiye aet nnd practices therein. Before Jlh' . John /,e-wis hearing examiner. JJh' . Edward F. Dmcns for the Commission. St1'ooclc St1'ooclc& La1)(lI of N e\\' York City, for respondents. CONSE:;T SETTLEi\IENT 1 Pursuant to t.he provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Federal Trade Commission 011 lay R , 1 !J52, issued and subsequently served its complaint on the respondents named in t.he caption hcreof, charging them with the usc of unfair' methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violatioll of the provisions of said Ad.

The respondents, desiring that this proceeding be di"posed of by the consent cettlement proeed1le provided in Hule V of the Commis- 1 The Commission s "Kotke" announcing and !n.oH1uJgating- th con ellt :-ettleIlput as publi:-hed herewith, follows:

The eonsent settlement tendered by the parties in tbi.'S proceeding, a CO!)y of which is sPITed herewith, was accepted by the Commis ioll on Allgllst In, HJ53. and ordered entered of record as the Commission s findings as to the f,-lct, conclusion, and order in dispo,"=itioll of this proceeding.

The time for filing report of compliance pursuant to the aforesai(l o1'(ler 1'uns from the date of service hereof' ROBERT HALL CLOTHES , I)lC. ! ET AL. 197 1 \) Findings sian s Hules of Pradice, solely for the purpose of this proceeding, any revip,w thereof, and the enforcement of the order consented to, and conditioned upon the Commission s acceptance of the consent settlement hereinafter set forth, and in lieu of the answer to said complaint heretofore filed and which, upon acceptance by the Commission of this settlement, is to be withdntwn from the record, hereby; 1. .:,,admit al1 the jurisdictional allegations set forth in the complaint.

:!. Consent that the Commission may enter the matters hereinaftet. set forth as its findings as to the facts, conclusion, ,wd order to cease and desist. It is understood that respondents, in consenting 10 the. Commission s entry of said findings as to the facts, conclusion )lml orde)' to cease and desist, specifically refrain from admitting de.nying that they have engaged in any of the acts or practices stated therein to be in violation of Jaw.

:3. Agree t. hat this consent settlement may be set aside in whole or jn part under the conditions and in the manner provided in paragraph (f) of H nle V of the Commission s HnJes of Practice. The admitted jurisdict ional facts, the st'ttement of the acts and practices ,,,which the Commission had reason to believe were unlawful the conclusion based thereon, and the other to cease and desist, all of \which respondents consent may be entered he.rein in final disposition nf this proce.edings are as follows:

FI"DINGS AS TO THE F.\CTS , is " cor- lail\GHAl'H 1. Respondent, Hobert Hall Cloth"". Inc. porat.ion organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue. of the laws of the State of Delaware with its offce and principal place. of business at 12'l1 Broadway, ;\ ew York City, ew York. Hespondents Harold Rosner, Frank B. Sawdon, and Achilles Suykpr ate now, and were during all the times hereinafter stated offcers and directors of said respondent corporation, and ,tS such direct and have direct.ed the activities of re.spondent corporation, ,md fonnulate nnd control and have formulated and controUed its policies, practices n nd aJ!airs including the advertising representations JIade in connection therewith.

PAR. 2. Hesponeleni Bobcrt Hall Cloth"s, 111' , is now, ami for JIore than 1 ye.ar Jast past IUls been the owner of aU the issued and outstanding capital stock of numerous subsidiary corporations engage.el in the operation of many retail clothing stores located in many of the St.ate.s and i" engaged in the operation of two clothing factories and OEe warehouse. The activities of the aforesaid subsidiary corpora- Findings 50 F. T. C.

tions are controlled and directed by respondent Robert Hall Clothes Inc.

, women, and children The aforesa.id retail stores sell men clothing to the purchasing public, some of which clothing is manufactured by corporate respondent's subsidiary manufacturing corporations and some of which is purchased by said respondent from other manufacturers.

Corporate respondent ships and has shipped the clothing manufactured by it and purchased from other m:mufacturers from its factories and warehouses and from the factories of other manufacturers from which it buys and has bought clothing, to the aforesaid retail stores which are located throughout various States of the United States. In many instances the rebtil stores are locat.ed in States other than the State in which such shipments have or had their origin. The aforesaid retail st.ores are engaged in the sale of clothing and the shipment of certain thereof in commerce as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, to purchasers locat.ed in Stat.es other than that. in which such shipments have or had t.their origin. The corporate respondent maintains and at an times mentioned herein has maintained a course of trade in said clothing in commerce among and between the various States of the 17united States. PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of the business as aforesaid, and for the purpose of inducing t.he purchase of the aforesaid clothing, respondent, ot.her tlum A. Harry Feldman, cilUsed advertisements t.o be published in newspapers circulat.ed among prospective purchasers in various of the several Stat.es of the United States. Among and typical, but not all inclusive of the representations made in such advertisements so published and circulated, are the following: 39.95 Gabardines and All.Wool Coverts with 100% Wool Liners 29. 49.95 All-Wool Gabardines with 100% All-Wool Liners 34. Rush to Robert Hall 000 BRAND NEW All-Wool Winter Coats Regularly from $23.9G to $43.

13. 18. 23.

Saves 33% at ROBERT HALL Boys 5.95 Gabardine Slacl,s 3.

Luxurious All-Wool 2-Ply Worsted Suits . . . . . . . . . 29.95 Regular 39.95 Value Pure Wool lavishly fur-trimmed coats Regular 50.00 value ," '" 37.

This week Robert Hall slashes prices on thousands of fine wint.er coats ! 43.95 coats. N ow pay only 13. , 18.95 or 23.95 for regular 23.95 to ROBERT HALL CLOTHES , INC., ET AL. 199 196 Findings When respondents caused such advertisements to be published and circulated as aforesaid the name of the respective retail store was inserted therein and respondent corporation paid the cost of said publication.

PAR. 4. Through the use of the aforesaid statements, and others similar thereto not specifically set forth herein, corporate respondent represented directly or by implication:

(a) That its regular prices for the clothing offered for sale in such advertisements were greater than those prices at which such clothing was being oflered for sale in said advertisements. (b) That because it had reduced the prices of the clothing so advertised, purchasers of such clothing would save money. (c) That its clothing as so advertised was of a specific value which was in excess of the prices charged for such clothing by corporate respondent.

PAH. 5. The statements and representations made by respondents other than A. Harry Feldman, in the aforesaid advertisements are false, misleading, and deceptive. In truth and in fact: (a) Corporate respondent's regular prices for the clothing oflered for sale in said advertisements were not greater than the prices at which it oflered such clothing for sale in said advertisements. (b) Corporate respondent had not reduced the prices of the clothing oflered for sale in said advertisements so that the purchasers thereof could not save money from its regular prices for such clothing. (c) Corporate respondent's clothing offered for sale in said advertisements was not of the value ascribed thereto by them in said advertisements.

PAn. 6. In the course and conduct of their business, corporate respondent and the aforesaid retail stores have been at all times mentioned herein, in substantial competition with other corporations firms and individuals engaged in the business of selling clothing, in commerce among and between the various States of the United States. PAR. 7. The use by respondents, other than A. Harry Feldman, of the foregoing statements and representations, and others similar thereto, has had and now has the tendency and capacity to mislead a substantial portion of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that such statements and representations are true and to induce a substantial portion of the purchasing public, because of such erroneous and mistaken belief, to purchase the clothing sold by corporate respondent through its retail stores. As a result of said respondents' practices as aforesaid, injury has been done to competition in commerce among and between the various States of the United States.

200 FEDERAL TRADE CO:vMISSION DECISIONS Order GO F.

CONCLUSION The acts and practices of respondents, other than A. Harry Feldman, as herein found are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of the competitors of corporate respondent, and constitute unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST It is ordered that respondent, Robert Had Clothes, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, representatives, agents, ltld employees and respondents Harold Ilosner, Frank B. Sawdon, and Achilles Suyker as offcers and directors of said corporate respondent, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale and distribution of clothing in cOllmerce as "commerce do forthwith cease is defined in the :Federal Trade Commission Act, and desist from:

1. Representing, directly or by implication that the regular price of corporate respondent's clothing is any amount in excess of the price at which such clothing is being oflered for sale or has been sold by corporate respondent in recent regular course of business. 2. Representing, directly or by implication, that any price which docs not constitute a reduction from corporate respondent's former prices for its clothing affords any savings to purchasers from corporate respondent's regular prices, or misrepresenting in any manner the amount of savings afforded to purchasers of corporate respondent' clothing.

3. Hepresenting, directly or by implication, that the value of corporate respondent's elothing is any amount in excess of its actual value. Provided, !were1Jer That nothing contained in this order shall prevent respondents from advertising or otherwise representing that corporate respondent' s merchandise is worth or of a value in excess of the stated price of com- price, provided such worth 01' value is based upon the parable merchandise sold by other retailers in the same trade territory. 4. Cooperating or participating with corporate respondent's subsidiary retail stores in disseminating any advertisement containing any representation prohibited by this order. It is fwrther ordend That the complaint herein be and it hereby is dismissed without prejudice as to respondent A. Harry Feldman. It is further ordered That respondents Hobert Hall Clothes, Inc. Harold Rosner, Frank B. Sawdon, and AehiDes Suyker shall, within sixty (GO) days aiter service upon them of this order, file with the , INC. , ET AL. 201 ROBERT HALL CLOTHES 196 Order Commission II report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order. ROBERT HALL CLOTHES, INC.

13 y (Sgd) HAROLD ROSNER President.

(Sgd) Harold Rosner HAROLD ROSNER (Sgd) Frank B. Sa wdon FUANK B. SA WDON (Sgd) A. Harry Feldman A. HARRY FELD IAN (Sgd) Achiles Suyker ACHILLES SUYKER.

Date:

The foregoing consent settlement is hereby accepted by the Federal 19th day oftrade Commission and ordered entered of record this August 1953.

Decision 50 F. T. C.

IN THE MATTER OF AMEInCAN TACK COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

DECISION IN HEGARDTO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT lJuckct 5758. C011/1Jlaint, Mar. 1950-Deeisiun, Aug. , 1953 '\There a corporate manufacturer, and a second corporate concern, engaged as purchasing, selling, and distributing agent for the forn1er, and four individuals who formulated, direct.ed, and controlled t.he policies and practices of both, engaged in the sale and distribution of thumbtacks made by said manufacturer; and in the sale and distribution also of finished t.humbtaeks imported from Germany, which t.hey imported in bulk, removed from the origiual shipping cases, and packaged in small boxes labeled "Solid Head Nickel Plated 'l'humbtaeks Sold said thumbtacks last referred to to jobbers and dealers for resale t.o the general public, without any imprinting, labeling, or marking on the boxes or packages in which they were packed to indicate to purchasers that they were of foreign or German origin; with tendency and capacity to mislead and deceive members of the purchasing public into the false belief t.hat. said products were of domestic manufacture and origin, and into the purchase tbereof in reliance on such erroneous belief: Held That such acts and practices, under the circumstances set fort.h, were all to the prejudice and injury of the public and constituted unfair and deceptive acts and practices in COillnerce.

Before Mr. F1"ank lieir hearing examiner. l11r. Jesse D. J( ash for the Commission. Rosenbaum Cella?' of New York City, for respondents. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act the Federal Trade Commission on March 23 , 1950, issued and subscquently served its complaint in this proceeding upon the respondentg named in the caption hereof, charging them with the use of unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce in violation of the provisions of said Act. After the filing by respondents of their joint answer to the complaint, hearings were held at which testimony and other evidence in support of and in opposition to the allegations of the complaint were introduced before a he tring examiner of the Commission, theretofore duly designated by it, and such testimony and other evidence were duly recorded and filed in the offce of the Commission. On July 14 , 1952, the hearing examiner filed his initial decision.

The Commission, having reason to believe that the initial decision did not constitute an appropriate disposition of the proceeding, placed AMERICAN' TACK CO. , INC. , E'I AL. 203 202 indings this case on the Commission s own docket for review and on January , 1953, it issued and thereafter served on the parties its order affording the respondents an opportunity to show cause why the initial decision should not be altered in the manner and to the extent shown in the tentative decision attached to said order. Respondents subsequently filed memorandum interposing their objections to the alterations aforesaid and counsel supporting the complaint filed memorandum in reply thereto. The Commission having considered and ruled on such objections, this proceeding regularly came on for final consideration by the Commission upon the record here on review; and the Commission, having duly considered the matter and being now fully advised in the premises, finds that this proceeding is in the interest of the public and makes the following findings as to the facts conclusion drawn therefrom, and order, the same to be in lieu of the initial decision of the hearing examiner:

FINDIKGS AS TO THE FACTS Pall\GHAI'H 1. American Tack Company, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of .New York with its post offce address and principal place of business Ht 3-7 Cross Street, Suffern, New York. Michael Markman, Edward H. vVeinberg, Molly Markman, and .James L. vVeinberg are President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer, respectively, of said corporation. The bus;ness address of said individuals is the same as that of the corporation.

Iarkwin Industries, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York with its address and principal place of business at 3--7 Cross Street, Suffern .N ew York. It is a purchasing, selling and distributing agent for American Tack Company, Inc. Harold M. vVeinberg, Michael Markman, Anna Weinberg, and Molly Markman are the Chairman of the Board, President, Secretary, and Treasurer, respectively, of said corporation. The business address of said individuals is the same as that of the corporation.

These respondent individuals formulate, direct, and control the policies and practices of the corporations with which they are connected and have cooperated in putting into etrect the practices hereinafter enumerated.

PAR. 2. The respondents are now, and have been for several years last past, engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of thumbtacks manufactured by respondent American Tack Company, Inc. and also in the sale and distribution of finished thumbtacks imported from Germany. Respondents cause their said products, when sold, to 204 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSJON m:CISIONS Findings o F. T. C.

be shipped from their place of business in the State of K ew York to jobbers and dealers located in various other States of the 'Cnited States. Said jobbers sell to dealers which dealers, in turn, sell said thumbtacks to the general public. Respondents maiutain, and at all times mentioned herein have maintained a course of trade in said products in commerce between and among the various States of the Fnite(l States. Their volume of business iu such commerce is substantial. PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents thumbtacksthrough Markwin Industries, Inc. , purchase and imp01.t from Germany in bulk quantities. The respondents remove the tacks from the original shipping cases, package them in small boxes labeled Solid Head Nickel Plated Thumbtacks." ;U no place on the container or otherwise is the fact disdosed that said tacks arc of fOJ',ign ol'gm.

PAR. 4. There has been, and now is, among members of a substantial segment of the buying and consuming public throughout the Pnited States, including purchasers of thumbtacks, a substantial, since!'e and subsistent preference for thllnbtacks which arc of wholly domestic manufrlcture or origin as distinguished hom products of foreign mannfacture or origin, although the preponderance of evidence in the record in this proceeding indicates that such preference does uot exist on the part of the entire purchasing public or en:I the greater portion thereof.

PAR. 5. There is substantial evidence that purchasers of respondent s product described hereinabove in Paragraph :3 have achmlly purcha.sed and may purchase under the impression, upon visual inspection, that the contents of such packages "' ere in fact made in the United States. Furthermore, since the dominant word in the corporate name "American Tack Company " is "American" and since it is known in the trade to be the largest domestic producer of thumbtacks, the fad that it sells :3 manifestly would tend to fmthe.the product, described in Paragraph the impression on the part of members of the trade hnying from directly that such products are of domestic manufacture even though this respondent's name has not appeared on individual packages thereof.

PAR. 6. There is no reliable, probative. or substantial evidence that it has been the custom of respondents to commingle tacks mann- :Jacturcrl by them with imported tacks and to designate such mixt.ure as "made in U. S. A." as eharg-ed in the complaint. PAR. 7. There is no reliable, probative, or substantial evidence that the respondents' thumbtacks, de.signat.ed as "Saf- He(l Thumbtacks," and represented on the containers thereof to have extra mcta 1 caps, do not in fact hate such extra metal caps as represented. AMERICAN TACK CO. , INC. , ET AL. 205 202 Order PAR. 8. The complaint alleged that respc)1dents Anna "Weinberg, James L. 'Veinberg, Edward H. ' Weinberg, and Molly Markman trading as co-partners under the name of Tackanail Company, have distributed and sold their merchandise as agent for respondent Amerian Tack Compa.ny, Inc. The record discloses, however, that Tackamtil Company is a jobber and has resold to retailers products acquired by it from American Tack Company, Inc., and it further appears that this concern has not distributed any of the solid head nickel plat.ed thumbtacks referred to in Paragraph 3 above. Although it has been concluded that respondents Ann IVeinberg, James L. vYeinberg, Edward H. vYeinberg, and Molly Markham have cooperated, as heren have described, in putting into effect and performing the acts and practice there referred to, it does not appear tlmt they ever engaged in such acts or practice in connection with the offering for sale of merchandise which was distributed by Tackanail Company. PAR. 9. The practice of respondents, as hereinabove described in Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, in offering for sale, selling and distributing thumbtacks of foreign origin without any imprinting, labeling, or marking on the boxes or packages in which they are packed to indicate to purchasers that said thumbtacks are of German origin, has had and has the tendency and capacity to mislead and deceive memhers of the buying and consmning public into the false and erroneous belief that said thumbtacks are of domestic manufacture and origin lJcl into the purchase thereof in reliance thereon of such false and erroneous belief.

CONCLUSION The aforesaid acts :md praetiees of the respondents, as hereinabove found, are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in eommeree within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Aet. The Commission is of the opinion that those allegations of the eomplaint as they relate to the acts and praetiees engaged in by the respondents, Anna IVeinberg, James L. vYeinberg, Edward H. IVeinberg, and ;\folly Markham, in connection with the offering for sale of merchandise distributed through Taclmnail Company are not supported by the record.

ORDER It is o-rrlend That respondent American Taek Company, Ine. , a orporation, and its ollcers; respondents Miehael Markham, Edward H. vYeinberg, Molly Markman, and James L. Weinberg, individually and as olleers and directors of respondent American Taek Company, Inc. ; respondent Markwin Industries, Inc., a corporation, and its of- Order 50 F. 1.. C.

ficers; and respondents Harold M. vVeinberg, Michael Markham Anna 'iVeinberg, and Mony Markham, individuaHy and as offcers and directors of said Markwin Industries, Inc., and the aforesaid respondents' agents, representatives, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale sale or distribution in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, of thumbtacks, or other similar products do forthwith cease and desist from offering for sale or selling any such products of foreign origin without clearly and conspicuously disclosing on the packages or other containers in which they are sold to the purchasing public, the country of origin of such products. I t is further' ordered, That the respondents shah, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order.

Commissioner Mason dissenting and stating that he is in accord with the ruling of the hearing examiner as approved by the linited States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Docket 4795-R. . Reynolds Tobacco Company.

M & M SPRING CO. ;:Ui Order 50 F. T. C.