Lanston Industries, Inc.

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

In ree Marrer or LANSTON INDUSTRIES, INC.

CONSEN'T ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 2(d) OF THE CLAYTON ACT Docket 7699. Compluint, Dec. 21, 1959—Decision, June 1, 1960 Consent order requiring a Philadelphia manufacturer of typesetting, typecasting, photomechanical, and platemaking equipment for the graphic arts industry, to cease violating Sec. 2(d) of the Clayton Act by paying compensation for services to some of its customers but not to their competitors on proportionally equal terms, such as paying $6,500 for advertising to a Philadelphia company.

ComPpLaINtT The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that the party respondent named in the caption hereof, and hereinafter more particularly described, has violated the provisions of subsection (d) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act (U.S.C. Title 15, Section 13), as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, hereby issues its complaint, stating its charges with respect. thereto as follows: ParacrapH 1. Respondent is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the State of Virginia, with its office and principal place of business located at Complaint 56 FLTC.

24th and Locust Streets in the City of Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania.

Par. 2. Respondent is now and has been engaged in the manufacture and sale of type-setting, type-casting, photomechanical and platemaking equipment for the graphic arts industry. Graphic arts equipment, manufactured by the respondent, is eventually purchased and used by lithographic letter pressmen, gravure and engraving establishments in the United States, Canada and South America. Total sales for the year 1958 were approximately $3,000,000. Respondent’s platemaking and photomechanical equipment is sold through its franchise distributors, of which there are fourteen, with a total of thirty-five offices throughout the United States. Said distributors are in competition with each other and each sells respondent’s products in whatever part of the country it may find buyers. Respondent is a substantial competitive factor in the United States, 90% of its sales being domestic.

Par. 3. In the course and conduct of its business, respondent has engaged, and is now engaging, in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Clayton Act, as amended. Respondent causes its products to be transported to the customers of its distributors in various states throughout the United States and the District of Columbia. Par. 4. In the course and conduct of its business in commerce, respondent paid, or contracted for the payment of, something of value to or for the benefit of some of its customers as compensation or in consideration for services or facilities furnished by or through such customers in connection with their offering for sale or sale of products sold to them by said respondent and such payments were not made available on proportionally equal terms to all customers competing in the sale and distribution of respondent’s products. Par. 5. For example, during the period between July 1, 1958 and June 30, 1959, respondent contracted to pay and did pay to Foster Type and Equipment Company, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, $6,500 as compensation or as an allowance for advertising or other service or facilities furnished by or through Foster Type and Equipment Company, Inc. in connection with its offering for sale or sale of products sold to it by respondent. Such compensation or allowance was not offered or otherwise made available on proportionally equal terms to all other customers competing with Foster Type and Equipment. Company, Inc. in the sale and distribution of respondent’s products.

Par. 6 The acts and practices of respondent, as alleged above, violate subsection (d) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act.

— CO “I LANSTON INDUSTRIES, INC.

1485 Complaint Mr. Fredric Suss for the Commission.

Mr, Wiliam J. vanden Hewvel, of New York, N.Y., for respondent. Inzrian Decision By Enear A. Burtie, Heartne Examiner On December 21, 1959, the Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondent charging it with violating the provisions of subsection (d) of section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended, in connection with the manufacture and sale of type-setting, type-casting, photomechanical and platemaking equipment. for the graphic arts industry. On March 2, 1960, the respondent and counsel supporting the complaint entered into an aereement containing a consent. order to cease and desist in accordance with section 3.25(a) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Commission.

Under the foregoing agreement, the respondent admits the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint and agrees among other things, that the cease and desist order there set forth may be entered without further notice and shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing. The agreement includes a waiver by the respondent of all rights to challenge or contest the validity of the order issuing in accordance therewith; and recites that the said agreement shall not become a part of the official record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission, and that it is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondent that it has violated the law as alleged in the complaint. The hearing examiner finds that the content of the said agreement meets all the requirements of section 3.25(b) of the Rules of Practice.

This proceeding having now come on for final consideration by the hearing examiner on the complaint and the aforesaid agreement for consent. order, and it appearing that said agreement provides fer an appropriate disposition of this proceeding, the aforesaid agreement is hereby accepted and is ordered filed upon becoming part of the Commission’s decision in accordance with section 8.21 of the Rules of Practice; and in consonance with the terms of said agreement, the hearing examiner makes the following jurisdictional findings and order:

1. Respondent Lanston Industries, Inc. is a corporation existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Virginia. with its office and principal place of business located at 24th and Locust Streets in the City of Philadelphia, State of Pennsvivania.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject Sylabus 56 F.L.C, matter of this proceeding and of the respondent hereinabove named. The complaint states a cause of action against said respondent under subsection (d) of section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended. ORDER It is ordered, That respondent Lanston Industries, Inc., its officers, employees, agents and representatives, directly or through any corporate or other device, in the course of its business in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Clayton Act, as amended, do forthwith cease and desist from:

Making or contracting to make, to or for the benefit of any customer, any payment of anything of value as compensation or in consideration for any advertising or other services or facilities furnished by or through such customer, in connection with the handling, resale or offering for resale of products manufactured, sold, or offered for sale by respondent, unless such payment or consideration is affirmatively offered or otherwise made available on proportionally equal terms to all other customers competing in the resale or distribution of such products.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to section 3.21 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the Ist day of June, 1960, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly : It is ordered, That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it. has complied with the order to cease and clesist.