Matthew Huttner et al. trading as Pyramid Books

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

IN THE :Matrer OF MATTHEIV HUTT""ER ET AL. TRADING AS PYRL"IID BOOKS T ORDER, ETC., IN REGAil) TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE CO:\I1\ISSlOX .ACT Docket 6307. Complaint, ilia)". 8, 1955-Decision, Jnne 5, 1955 Consent order requiring book sellers in ?\ew York City to cease selling their book reprints without adequately disclosing that they were abridgements and freQucntlr sold under different titles from those under \which the books were originally published.

Beforel/I1'. Earl J. I( o7b hearing examiner. llh. William L. Pencke and ilh. TViWam J1. Ki11g for the Commission.

311,. Lei' oy E. Rodman of New York City, for respondents. C01\:IPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that :Matthew I-Iuttner and Alfred R.. Plaine, copartners trading under the firm name and sty Ie of Pyramid Books, hereinafter referred to as responclen ts, have violated the provisions of said Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint, stating its charges in that respect as follows:

P ARAGRAPIr 1. Respondents Matthew Huttner and Alfred R. Plaine are co-partners, tra.ding and doing business under the firm llame and style of Pyramid Books with their offce and principal place of business located at 444 JIa,dison A venue, New York 22, N ew York. PAR. 2. Hesponde,nts are now and for more than two years last past have been, engaged in the business of selling and distributing books through their agent or consignee, the Kable J\-:ews Co., causing said books, when sold, to be transported from the place of business of said Kable"" ews Co. in the State of New York to the purchasers thereof located in t.he various States of the L'nitecl States and in t.he District of Columbia. Hespondents maintain, and at all times mentioned herein have maintained a substantial course of trade in said books in commerce among and between the various States of the United States and the District of Col nmbia.

1262 FEDERAL TRADE COl\DIISSIOX DECISIOXS Complaint :)1 F. T. C. PAT:. 8. Among the hooks sold by cspollc1en(s ns aflH'c2clicl, are rcprints of books from Iyhich portion of the text hl1Te been deleted; and there are certain other reprints sold as aforesaid \which bear difIel'ent titles 1'1'031 those under ,which such books were originally published. Respondents disclose the fact of ::uch ;lbl'jdgem. lj- b" printing the word "Abric1gecF 1n 511n11 incon,':picllOllS letters 011 the lower right C01'- Jie!' 01 the fl'Ollt C.()TC1' find onrhe JOIycr left ('01'ller of the hack cO\of said books. Hespondents do not g1ye any noti e of abridgement on 1he tit1c page of the said books. In the case of the reprints bearing n8\' titJes the ncw titles are prin ec1 in large white letters on dark backgrollnds on the front cover and the original title is printed in 5n1;11 Inconspicuous type, in chrk i)1k, under the Jlew title. The original title is also printed, in parenthesis, Hnder the 11(',," title on the title page of these books but in llnch smaller type and in a much less conspicuG-lls manner than the new title, and "Without any reference to the fact such title is the title under ' which the book ,Yas originally published. Through the use of the llew titles in place of the original titles the manner afOl'eSHicl respondents thereby repre8cnt or imply that said books are new books published under the titles set out thereon. ''!TL 4. The said disclosures on the front and back covers of )' ponclents' said books that such book:' are abl'iclged, and the manner ill which the new titles are set out in relation to the original titles, do not constitut.e adequate notice of such abridgement. or the fact that said books are reprints under a new name, in that., such disclosures are not noticeable to the average purchaser and are not displayed in such a rnanner or position as readily to attract the attention of prospective purchasers. )\1:oreo\'cr, the appearance of the original title in parenttheses and in small inconspicuous type, as rdoresaid: has the tendency and capacity to lead some members of the purclw81ng public into the mistaken belief that said title is a subtitle and not the title under which the sa.me book '\as published originally.

\R. 5. In the course and conduct of said business respondents have been and are in subst.antial competition in commerce with other cor. porn.tions and with individuals, partnerships and others engaged in the sale of books.

\R. G. The :failure of respondents to make ;lcle(lll;l te (lisctosllrc j;,,1t certain of their books are abrjd2-'cllellt; nnd tlus bonI::s to Khjeh tlh':" 1Jave given new titles are not different from the book of ,which the:- 111'C reprints) has had, flnc11low has, the ten(1cllcy and c tpaC'it, to je:lc1 substantial portion of the purc11asing public into the mistaken and er roneons belief that said books are complete and unabridged or are new alld original publications, and to induce a sllbstantlfll portion of said PYRA1VUD BOOKS 1263 1261 Decision puhlic to purchase respondents' said books in commerce because of said erroneous and mistaken belief. As a result thereof trade has been and is unfairly diverted from their competitors in commerce and substantial injury has been and is being done to competition in commerce. PAR. 7. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents' competitors and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION Pursuant to Sec. 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice, and as set forth in the Commission s "Decision of the Commission and Order to File Report of Compliance " dated June 25, 1955, the initial decision in the instant matter of hearing examiner Earl J. Kolb, as set out as follows, became on that date the decision of the Commission. INITIAL DECISION BY EARL .J. KOLE, HEARING EXAMINER The complaint in this proceeding charges the respondents Matthew Huttner and Alfred R. Plaine, copartners trading under the firm name of Pyramid Books, located at 444 Madison A venue, X ew York, K ew Yark, with the use of unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce in violation of the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, in connectioll ,.dth the sale and distribution of books without making adequate disclosures that certain of said books are abridgements or that they have been given new titles different from the books of which they are reprints. In lieu of submitting answer to said complaint, respondents entered into a stipulation for a consent order with counsel in support of the complaint, which was duly approved hy the Director and Assistant Director of the Bureau of Litigation. It was expressly provided in said stipulation that the signing thereof is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint. By the terms of said stipulation, the respondents admitted all the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and agreed that the record herein may bc taken as if the Commission had made findings of jurisdictional facts in accordance with such allegations. By said stipulation all patties expressly waived the filing of answer, a hearing before the hearing examiner or the Commission, the making of findings of fact . or conclusions of law by the hearing examiner or the Commission, the .12I1T8;J-58- Order 31 F. T. C.

fiing of exceptions and oral argument before the Commission, and all further and other procedure before the hearing examiner and the Commission to which the respondents may he entitled under the Federal Trade Commission Act or the Rules of Practice of the Commission. By said stipulation, respondents further agreed that the order to cease and desist, issued in accordance with said stipulation, shall have the same force and effect as if made after a ful hearing, presentation of evidence, and findings and conclusions thereon, and specifically waived any and all right, power or privilege to challenge or contest the validity of such order.

It was further provided that said stipulation, together with the complaint, shall constitute the entire record herein, that the complaint herein may be used in construing the terms of the order issued pursuant to said stipulation, and that said order may be altered modified or .set aside in the manner prescribed by the statute for orders of the Commission.

The hearing examiner has considered such stipulation and the order therein contained, and, it appearing that said stipulation and order provides for appropriate disposition of this proceeding, the same is hereby accepted and made a part or the record and in consonance with the terms of said stipulation the hearing examiner finds that the Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction or the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents named herein, and that this proceeding is in the interest of the public, and issues the following order:

ORDER It is ordered That the respondents Matthew Huttner and Alfred R. Plaine, individually and as copartners trading under the firm name of Pyramid Books or any other trade name, and their agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale and distribution of books in commerce as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. Offering for sale or sellng any abridged copy of a book unless one of the following words, namely, abridged abridgement condensed" or "condensation " or any other word or phrase stating with equal clarity that said book is abridged, appears in clear conspicuous type upon the front cover and upon the title page of the book, either in immediate connection with the title or in another posit.ion adapted readily to attract the attention of a prospective purchaser.

PYRA:-IID BOOKS 1265 1261 Order 2. Using or substituting a new title for, or in place of, the original title of a reprinted book unless a statement which reyeals the original title of the book and that it has been 'previously pnb1ished thereunder appears in clear, conspicuous type upon the front cover and upon the title page of the book, either in immediate connedion with the new title or in another position adapted readily to attract the attention of a prospective purchaser.

onder TO FILE HEPORT OF CO).IPLIAKcr It is mde1'ed That the respondents herein shan 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 hy said declaratory decision and order of .Tnne 25, 1955J. Complaint 51 F.

IN THE lA TTEH OF HENRY R. FISHER ET AL. TRADI G ccs H. FISHER CONSENT ORDER , ETC. 1K HEGAHD TO THE ALLEGED VJOLATlON OF THE FEDERAL TRADE CO)lMISSIOX ACT AND Tile 'VOOL PROD"CCTS LAn:ELING ACT Docket 6316. C01nplaint, Ma?" 22, 1955-Decision, J-nne, .1955 Consent order requiring manufacturers in Philadelphia, Pa. , to cease violating the Wool Products Labeling Act by misstating the fiber content on tags or labels on girls' and misses' coats, failing to set forth 'Separately the fiber content of interlinings, and otherwise failng to comply with the labeling equirements of the Act.

Before AIr. John Lewis hearing examiner. M1'. Roslyn D. ounq, h. for the Commission. COl\PLAINT Plirsuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the "\'1001 Products Labeling Act of 1808. and hy virtue of the authority vested in it by said -\cts. the Federal Trade COllmission having reason to believe that IIenry R. Fisher and Isadore Fisher, as individuals and copartners, trading as H. Fisher, hercinafte.r referreel to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts a,nel the Rules and Regulations promulgfttccl under the ,V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939, and it appearing to the Corllnission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in r.he public interest, hereby issues its cOlnplaint: stating its charges in that respect as follows: PATIAGHAPH 1. Respondents, I-Ienry R. Fisher and Isadore Fisher as individuals and copartners, are trading as 1-1. Fisher, with their principal offce and place of business located at 147 orth 10th Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

PAIL 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the \Vool Products La.beling Act of 1939 and more especially since January 1954 , re spondents have manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced in commerce, sold, transported, distributed delivered for shipment and offered for sale in commerce, as ;; COllUnel'Ce ': is defined in said Act, ,vool products, as " ,,001 products:: are defined therein. PAR. 8. Certain of said wool products "\ere misbra.nded "\within the intent anclmcaning of Section 4 (a) (1) of said Wool Procluds Labeling Act and the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder in that they were falsely aull deceptively labeled 01' tagged "jtlt respect H. FISHER 1267 1266 Decision to the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. Among such misbranded products were girls' and misses' coats labeled or tagged by respondents as containing "35% 'Voal" and " 65% neprocessed "Wool" ; whereas, in truth and in fact said products did not consist of 35% wool and B5o/e reprocessed "wool as defined in said Act, but contained 20% wool 200/0 reprocessed wool, 56% reused wool and 4% other fibers.

PAn. 4. Certain of said wool products described as girls' or misses coats were misbranded in that they were not stamped, tagged or labeled as reqnirecl under' the provisions of Section 4 (a) (2) of said W' 001 Products Labeling Act of J 939, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. PAR. 5. Certain of said wool products described as girls' or misses coats were further misbranded by respondents within the intent and meaning of the "Wool Products Labeling Act in that the fiher content of interlinings contained in said coats were not separately set forth on labels or tags attached thereto as required hy rule 24 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. PAR. 6. The acts and practices of the respondents as hereinabove alleged were in violation of the IV 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and of the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constitute.e unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Decision OF THE COl\l\IISSIOK Pursuant to Sec. 3.21 of the Commission s RuJcs of Pra,ctice, and as set :forth in the Commission s "Decision of the Commission and Order to File Heport of Compliance, dated June 25 , 1955 , the initial decision in the instant. matter of hearing examiner John Lewis, as set out as follows became on that date the decision of the Commission. INITIAL DECISION BY JOHN LE'VIS 1 HEARING EXA).:INCH The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents on March 22, 1955, charging them with having violated the "I 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and the Federal Trade Commission Act, through the misbranding of certain wool products. After being duly served with said complaint, the respondents appeared and filed their answer thereto. Thereafter they entered into a stipulation with counsel supporting the complaint, pro- 1268 FEDERAL TRADE COj\I1\nssIO DECISIONS Order fJl F. T. Tiding for the withdrawal of said ans'ycl' and for the entry or a consent order disposing or all the issues in this proceeding. Said stipulation has been submitted to the above-named hearing examiner, heretofore duly designated by the Conm1issioll, for his consideration in accordance with Rule V or the Commission s Hules or Practice. Respondents, pursuant to the aforesaid stipulation, have admitted an the jurisdictional al1cgations or the complaint and agreed that the record herein ma,y be taken as if the Commission had made findings or jurisdictional facts in accordance -with such allegations. Said stipulation further provides that all parties expressly waive a hearing before the hearing examiner or the Commission, and all further and ,other procedure to which the respondents may be entitled under the Federal Trade Commission Act or the Rules of Practice of the Commission. Hespondents have also agreed that the oreler to cease and desist issued in accordance \"ith said stipulation shall have the. same force and effect as if made after a full hearing, and specifically waive any and all right, power, or privilege to challenge or contest the validity of said order. It has been further stipulated and agreed that the complaint herein may be used in construing the terms of the order provided for in said stipulation.

This proceeding having now come on for final consideration by the hearing exalIliner on the complaint and the aforesaid stipulation for consent order, dated April 26 , 1955, the answer previously filed hy respondents being hereby deemed withdran. , and it appearing that said stipulation provides for an rlppropl'iate disposition of this proceeding, the same is hereby accepted and ordered filed as part of the record herein by the hearing exarninel', who makes the following findings, for jurisdictional purposes and order: 1. Hespondents are now .and have been nt nU time,; mellticmed in the :complaint herein, a partnership, with their office and principal place of business located at 147 ort:h 10th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvanifl. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents hereinabove named. The complaint states a cause of nc.tioll against said respondents under the 'Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Federal Trade Commission Act, ancl this proceeding is in the interest of the public. ORDER It is ordered That the respondents, 1-lenry R.. Fisher and Isaclore trading as H. Fisher, or under Fisher, individually and as copartners, any other name, and respondents' Tepresentatives agents and e11- H. FISHER 1269 1266 Order , in COll-ployees, directly or through any corporate or other device nection whh the introduction or manufacture for introduction into commerce, or offering for sale, sale, trallsportation or distribution in commerce, as "commerce:' is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, of girls' or misses coats or other '"wool products " as such products are defined in and subject to the \\Tool Products Labeling Act of 1939, which products contain, purport to contain, or in any way are represented as contailling "\vool reprocessed wool " or "reused wool " as those terms are denned in said Act, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding such prod acts by :

1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling or otherwise identifying such products .as to the character or amount of the constituent fibers included therein;

2. Failing to securely affx to or place on each such product a stamp, tag, label or other means of identification showing in a clear and conspicuous manner:

(a) Thc percentage of the total fiber weight of such wool products exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding five percentum of said total , (4)fiber weight, of (1) wool, (2) reprocessed wool, (3) reused wool such fiber other than wool where said percentage by weight of such fiber is five percentl1l1 or more, and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers;

(b) The maximum percentage of the total wcight of such wool products, of any non-fibrous loading, filling or adulterating ll1atter; (c) The name or the registered identifimtion number of the manufacturer of such wool product or of one or more persons engaged in introducing such wool product into commerce, or in the ofiering for sale, sale, transportation, distribution or de1iyery for shipment thereof in commerce, as '; co11m81'ce " is defined in the \Vool Products Labeling Act of 1989.

3. Failing to separately set forth on the required tamp, tag, label or other meallS of identificfltion the character and amount of the constituent fibers appearing in the interlinings of such ,yool products as provided by Rule 24, of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

P1'ovided That the foregoing provisions concerning misbranding shall not be construed to prohibit acts permitted hy paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 3 of the 11'001 Products Labeling Act of 1939, and P1'ovided f'uTther That nothing contained in this order shall be construed as limiting any applicable provisions of said Act or the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

1270 FEDERAL TRAnE COMMISSION DECISIONS Order 51 F. 1-', C.

ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE It is ordered That the respondents herein 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 June 25 , 1955J. WINER MAUFACTURING CO., INC., ET AL. 1271 Complaint