Merit Enterprises, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF MERIT ENTERPRISES , INC., ET AL.

SENT ORDER, ETC. , IN RF:GARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF Tl-IE Frderal TRADE COMMISSION ACT Docket 7328. Compla-tnt, Dec. 1.958- Decision, )VIa?". , 1.959 Consent order requiring" Brooklyn, N. , distributors of electrical appliancesincluding percolators, skillets, and cooker-hyers-to cease representing falsely in advertising material disseminated to purcha ers for use in resale, in newspap-er advertising and on attached tags and labels, that exaggerated and fictitious prices were the usual retail prices of their products; by use of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval, that certain of their products had been approved or guaranteed by the Good Housekeeping' Magazine and advertised therein; and through conspicuous use of the name "Westinghouse " that certain of their products were manufactured by vVestinghousc Electric Corporation. Mr. Terml A. Jordan for the Commission. Mr. Irving L. Stein of New York, N. , for respondents. INITIAL DECISION BY WALTER R. JOHNSON, HEARING EXAMINER The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents on December 9, 1958, charging them with having violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. On January 22 , 1959 , the respondents and their attorney entered into an agreement with counsel in support of the complaint for a consent order.

The hearing examiner finds that the content of the agreement meets all of the requirements of Section 3. 25 (b) of the Rules of the Commission.

The hearing examiner being of the opinion that the agreement and the proposed order provide an appropriate basis for disposition of this proceeding as to all of the parties, the agreement is hereby accepted and it is ordered that the agreement shall not become a part of the offcial record of the proceeding unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission. The following jurisdictional findings are made and the following order issued.

1. Respondent Merit Enterprises, Inc., is a corporation existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. Respondents David Bril, Frank S. Brill and Martin Bril are individuals and are president, vice presi- Order 55 F.

dent and secretary-treasurer, respectively of the corporate respondent. Respondents' offce and principal place of business is located at 577 \Vortman Avenue, in the city of New York (Brooklyn), State of New York.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subj ect matter of thie proceeding and of thp- respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

OlWER It i8 onle/'ed That respondents i\ferit Enterprises, Inc. , a corporation, and its offcers and David Brill, Frank S. Brill and Martin Bril, individually and as offcers of said corporation and respondents' agent, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection \\with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of electrical appliances including percolators, skillets or cooker-fryers, or other articles of merchandise, in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commi:-sion Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. Representing directly or indirectly that any price is the ctail selling price of their products which is in excess of th2 price at which their products are regularly and customarily sold al retail.

2. Using the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval in connection with their merchandise; or representing- in any manner that their merchandise has been awardc d said seal of approval, or that their merchandise has been approved by an:,/ other group or organization, unless such is the fact, provided, however, that this prohibition shall not be construed as prohibiting a truthful statement that a part of an article of merchandise has been approved by a group or organization, \"hen sllch part is clearly and conspicuously identified.

3. Using the name of any company in connection with merchandise \which has not been manufactured in its entirety by said company, or representing, directly or indirectly, that mer- (:handise not manufactured in its entirety by a specified company, was so manufactured pr01J'ided, h()'ucDcr that this prohibition shall not be construed as prohibiting a truthful statement that a part of an article of merchandise has been manufactured by a specific company when such part is clearly and conspicuously identified.

1. Peoviding retailers or distributors of their products with preticketed articles of merchandise or price lists or advertising MF:IU'f ENTERPRISES , INC., ET AL. 1595 159. Dccision or promotional materi"l through or by which ,aid retailer, distributors are enabled to mislead and cleceive the purchasing public \with respect to the matters set out in paragraph one herein. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE RF:PORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 3. 21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 27th day of March 1959, become the deci,ion of the Commission; and, accordingly:

It is onle?'d 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 cease and desist.

1596 EDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, DECISIONS Decision 55 F.