Chemical Compounds, Inc.

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

Ty the MArrer or CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMALISSION ACT Docket 8339. Complaint, Mar. 16, 1961—Decision, Dec. 21, 1961 Consent order requiring three individuals, formerly officers of a company liquidated before complaint issued, to cease representing falsely in advertising that their “STP” oi] additive was “German developed”, that they were its sole distributors, and that they had been selling it for 17 years. CompLainr 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 Chemical Compounds, Inc., a corporation, and Ralph D. Ligett, Rebert P. Depart and James C. Hill, individually and as officers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have viclated the provisions L858 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint oo FLTC.

of said Act, and it appearing to the Comints ‘on that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the pubic interest. hereby issues jis complaint, stating i lis charges in that resnect as follows: Paracrarir 1 Respondent Chemical Compounds, Inc. ig a cormoration ormanins d. existing and doing business under and by viztue of the laws of the State of Missouri, with its prineinal place of basiness located af G91 “anth 9th Street, Se. Joseph, Afissourt. Pndivicdial respondent ® Ral Iph PD. Tigeth. Rohert P. Det are o' that of the acts. prac eos one nohewes of sn r art and James ©.

said corporate respondent: have the same address as Ta my fers, OF the EOUPOPRTO respondent: ane control, divect and formulate uid corporate respondent, ineinding those heretuntter set forth.

Par 2 fesroendents are now. and fov my past have been. enenged in the advertising, ofering for enie, sate Cstiiinition of an oil additive wader the trade vame of STP. ie enondents ship. und cause to he shipped, their oil additive, whoa sob. avers thereat located ts vas other States of the Tnited States. Respondents maintain, and er all tantial course of trace is defined in the Federal fram the State of Missouri to pare times mentioned herein have maintained. as Msnid products 17 commerce, as “commerce” Trade Commission Act Pa yn purpese of inducing sales of their prodact. respondents have made Tn the course and conduct of their business ancl far the certain statements and representations in magazines ef national etrcalation. nevepapers. brochures, cirewars. radio, television and other media, some of which are furnished to retail dealers. Among and typical. hut not all inclusive, of the statements and representations sa made ore the following:

German Developed STP ADD TO YOUR OTL Ad@ STP ve veur cra aise Oii--ond the genius of German science foes right te werk, * Mirncie Preducr of German Science STP—prodner of Gorman researeh genivs. Hhaporced German Tyare-Curboans Magic SPP. GQiC of Cermay Seienes by STD.

New German Gevesened super-lubrieant. * =" Titstributed in U.S.A. by Chemical Ceanpeninds. Tic. St. Faseph. Alo. Millions Insist on se genuine German formulas at raur service station, Toisrribn- Chemical Compounds. Tne. St. Joseph, Ao.

German Ceveianed—100G6¢ prre petroleum concentrate. fsatistied Users for]? vears.

Par. 4. Respondents, through the use of the aforesaid statements Be Cor aD CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS, INC., E L.

1357 Complaint and representations, and others similar thereto, represent, directly and by implication, that:

J. Their product is a formula developed by a German scientist, 2. Their product is compounded in and imported from Germany. 3. They are the sole distributor of the oi! additive, which they sel! as TP, in the United States.

4. They have been in business for a period of at least 17 years, and they have been selling said product as STP during that period. Par. 5. Said statements and representations were, and are, false, misleading and deceptive. In truth andin fact: 1. Respondents’ product is compounded from a formula developed hiv United States companies.

2. Respondents’ product is produced by companies in the United States.

3. Respondents are not the sole United States distributer ef the oi] additive they sell as SEP: on the contrary, said oi] additive is distributed by other corporations, firms and persons in the United States. 4. Respondents have not been in business for 17 vears, nor lave they been selling for 17 years the oil additive they now rell. Par. 6. By the aforesaid practices, respondents place in the ands of retailers means and insitrumentalities by and through which they may mislead the public as to the above said representations of said ot] additives.

Par. 7. { have been, and now are, in substantial competition, in commerce, with corperations, firms and individuals engaged in the sale of oil additives. Par. § The use by respondents of the aforesaid false, misieading nud deceptive statements, representations and practices has had, and now has, the capacity and tendency to mislead members of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken behef that said statements and representations were, and are, true and into the purchase of substantial quantities of respondents’ preduct. by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief. As a consequence thereof, substantial ondents, at adi times mentioned here trade in commerce hag been, and is being, unfairly diverted to respondents from their competitors and substantial injury has thereby been, and is being, done to competition m commerce. Par. 9. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, were, and are, all to the prejudice and injury cf the public and ef respondents’ competitors and constituted. and new constitute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition “sy eeammmerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Decision 59 F.T.C.

Mr, William A. Somers supporting the complaint. Cravath, Swaine & Moore by Mr. John R. Hupper, of New York, N.Y., for C. D. Ligett (named in the complaint as Ralph D. Ligett), Robert P. Depart and James C. Hill, individually. IniriaL Decision By Joun B. Pornpexrer, Hearinc Examiner On March 16, 1961, the Federal Trade Commission issued a complaint charging that the above-named respondents in the course and conduct of their business and for the purpose of inducing the sale of their product had made certain statements and representations which are false, misleading and deceptive, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

On April 18, 1961, Counsel for Studebaker-Packard Corporation, informed the undersigned Hearing Examiner that on March 1, 1961, Studebaker-Packard acquired the entire Common Stock of Chemical Compounds, Inc. and requested additional time to, and including, May 15, 1961, in which to file an answer to the complaint. On September 14, 1961, respondent C. D. Ligett (named in the complaint as Ralph D. Ligett and hereinafter referred to as Ralph D. Ligett), Robert P. Depart and James C. Hill, as individuals, their attorneys and counsel supporting the complaint entered into an agreement for a consent order. The agreement states, among other things, that prior to the issuance of the complaint Studebaker-Packard Corporation purchased all outstanding stock of Chemical Compounds, Inc., the corporate respondent named in the complaint, and immediately thereafter caused the liquidation of the said corporate respondent. On the date of the acquisition of the said corporate respondent, the individual respondents Ralph D. Ligett, Robert P. Depart and James C. Hill resigned as officers of said Chemical Compounds, Inc., and none of the above said individual respondents have since become oflicers of Studebaker-Packard Corporation as shown in the affidavit (attached to and made a part of the agreement) of Stanley B. Feur, Assistant Secretary of Studebaker-Packard Corporation. The agreement recommends that the complaint be dismissed without: prejudice as to corporate respondent Chemical Compounds, Inc., and respondents Ralph D. Ligett, Robert. P. Depart and James C. Hill as officers of the said corporate respondent, but not as individuals. Accordingly, the term “respondents” as hereinafter used refers to the above-named respondents in their capacity as individuals and not as oflicers. The agreement also recommends that Subparagraphs 1 of Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the complaint be dismissed as to all respondents. The pertinent provisions of said agreement are as follows: Respondents admit all jurisdictional facts; the complaint may be used CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS, INC., ET AL. 1361 1357 Order in construing the terms of the order; the order shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing and the said agreement shall not become a part of the official record of the proceeding unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission; the record herein shall consist solely of the complaint and the agreement; respondents waive the requirement that the decision must contain a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; respondents waive further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission, and the order may be altered, modified, or set aside in the manner provided by statute for other orders; respondents waive any right to challenge or contest the validity of the order entered in accordance with the agreement and the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint. The undersigned hearing examiner, having considered the agreement and proposed order, hereby accepts such agreement, makes the following jurisdictional] findings, and issues the following order: JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS 1. Respondents Ralph D. Ligett, Robert P. Depart and James C. Hill are individuals with their offices located at 601 South 9th Street, St. Joseph, Missouri.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents hereinabove named and the proceeding is in the public interest. ORDER /t is ordered, That respondents C. D. Liggett (erroneously named in the complaint as Ralph D, Ligett), Robert P. Depart and James C. Hill, individually, and their representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with offering for sale, sale or distribution of oi] additives, or any other related product in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. Misrepresenting, directly or by implication : (a) The country of origin of their product. (b) That they are the only distributor of the product in the United States; or in any other manner misrepresent their status as distributor of the product.

(c) The number of years in which they have been conducting their business.

(d) The time during which they have been selling their product. 693-490—64-——_87 Complaint 59 F.T.C.

2. Placing any means or instrumentalities in the hands of others by and through which the public may be misled as to the inhibitions set forth in paragraph 1 of this order.

ft is further ordered, That subparagraphs 1 of Paragraphs + and 5 of the complaint issued herein be, and they are hereby, dismissed as to all respondents.

Also, it ts further ordered, That the complaint. be, and it. is hereby, dismissed as to respondent Chemical Compounds, Inc., and as to respondents Ralph D. Ligett, Robert P. Depart, and James C. Hill as oflicers of respondent Chemical Compounds, Inc. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, published May 6, 1955, as amended, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 21st day of December, 1961, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly :

[t 7s ordered, That respondents C. D. Ligett. (erroneously named in the complaint as Ralph D. Ligett), Robert. P. Depart and James C. Hill, individually, 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. Ix rur Marrer or ROBIN ROUSSEAU TRADING AS ALASKA SEW & FUR SHOP, ETC.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS - Docket C-49. Complaint, Dee. 21, 1961—Decision, Dee. 21, 1961 Consent order requiring a furrier in Spenard, Alaska, to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to show on labels the true animal name of the fur in fur products and to disclose when fur was dred; and by failing to comply with invoicing requirements.

Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act. and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Robin Rousseau, hereinafter referred to as respondent. ALASKA SEW & FUR SHOP, ETC. 1363 1862 Complaint has violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulation promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, and it appearing to the Commission that. a preceeding by it in respect. thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect.as follows:

Paracrarn. 1. Robin Rousseau is an individual trading as Alaska Sew & Fur Shop and Bobbie’s Fur Shop with their office and principal place of business located at 2905 Arctic Boulevard (Box 4626), Spenard, Alaska.

Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondent has been and is now engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in the manufacture for introduction into commerce, and in the sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution, in commerce, or fur products; and has manufactured for sale, sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which had been shipped and received in commerce as the terms “commerce”, “fur” and “fur products” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were not. labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Par. 4. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondent in that. they were not invoiced as required by Section 5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were invoices which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product. 2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was dyed when such was the fact.

Par. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not. invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that required item numbers were not set, forth on invoices in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 6. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Order 59 F.T.C.

DECISION AND ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondent named in the caption hereof having received notice of said determination and a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order an admission by the respondent of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint contemplated by such agreement, a statement. that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not. constitute an admission by respondent that the law has been violated as set forth in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission’s rules; and The Commission, having considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Robin Rousseau is an individual trading as Alaska Sew & Fur Shop and Bobbie's Fur Shop with her office and principal place of business located at 2905 Arctic Boulevard, Spenard, Alaska. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It ts ordered, That Robin Rousseau, an individual trading as Alaska Sew & Fur Shop and Bobbie’s Fur Shop, or under any other trade name, and respondent’s representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, manufacture for introduction, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce of fur products or in connection with the sale, manufacture for sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution of fur products which have been made in whole or in part. of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce as “commerce”, “fur? and “fur product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act do forthwith cease and desist, from:

1. Misbranding fur products by:

A. Failing to aflix labels to fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed ALASKA SEW & FUR SHOP, ETC. 1365 1362 Complaint by each of the subsections of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

B. Failing to set forth the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

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