Union Carbide Corporation

Text (OCR of the scan; may contain errors)

does not, by implication, represent that the hosiery bearing these trademarks was designed and created by the persons whose names constitute the trademarks.

The Commission's decision issued in this proceeding on ~fay 19 1960, and the order to cease and desist has become final by operation of Section 5(g) (1) of that Act. Such order requires respondents to cease representing directly and by implication that their hosiery has been created, designed, sty led or manufactured by anyone other than the respondents or the person who actually did create, design, style or manufacture such hosiery. This order is based on evidence which shows that respondents engaged in the practices of representing that their hosiery was created, designed or sty led by certain fashion dec;signers and that such representations are false. and misleading. It is well settled that the Commission may frame its order broadly enough to prohibit an unfair practice, in any form. The requirement. of the order, among othe.r things, that, respondents cease using the trademarks of fashion desigl1ers in the sale of their hosiery "without appropriate qualification or disclosure ' is necessary to achieve. that purpose.

Respondents, in the motion presently before. us, do not. contend that their hosiery is now designed, created or styled by the fashi011 designers whose trademarks they desire to use nor have. they made any attempt to show that the use of said trademarks without further,vorcling would not have a tendency and capacity to deceive. Their principal argument in this connection, that it is the practice in the hosiery industry to U80 the trademarks of fashion designers, provides no justification' for modification of an order so as to permit respondents to engage in a. sales practice shown to he unlawful. Morr.over, respondents make no showing that hosiery sold by other me.mbe.rs of the industry which bears the trademad\:s of fashion designers, is not in fa.ct designed, created or styled by said designers. Under the circumstances, we c.onclude that the respondents have not made the requisite showing of a change. in condition of fact. or of law nor have they demonstrated a probability that the public interest requires the action requested.

Respondents have made a request for oral argument, but it appe.ars that the briefs are entirely adequate to fuHy advise the Commission as to the matters in issue and that no useful purpose would be served thereby.

The Commission having determined-thnt respondents' motion provides no basis for reopening the proceed lng, sa id mot.Jon must therefore be denied.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS, ETC. 148)

ORDER

This matter having been heard on respondents’ motion filed on March 22, 1961, requesting modification of the order to cease and desist contained in the initial decision, as adopted by the Commission on May 19, 1960, and requesting oral argument, and upon the answer in opposition to the motion filed by counsel] supporting the complaint; and.

The Commission having concluded, for the reasons stated in its accompanying opinion, that respondents’ motion does not constitute a sufficient showing as contemplated under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act that conditions of fact or law may have so changed as to justify the action requested, or that the public interest. so requires:

It is ordered, That respondents’ motion filed on March 22, 1961, and request for oral argument be, and they hereby are, denied.

DIAMOND CRYSTAL SALT CO.

Docket 73828. Order, July 11, 1961 Order modifying desist order of Feb. 4, 1960, 56 F.T.C. S18. The respondent having filed a petition on June 7, 1961, which requests that the Commission approve the respondent's proposed purchase of certain package manufacturing machinery and patents attendant thereto, the land and building housing such machinery, and the existing inventory now owned by three affiliated companies known as Unit-Packet Corporation, Packet Products Corporation and Hoag- Russell Company, which concerns have been engaged in the sale of salt in small packets designed for use as individual servings; and The Commission having issued its decision in this proceeding on February 4,-1960, containing its order to divest and to cease and desist, which order, among other things, prohibits the respondent from acquiring any time during the succeeding ten years the assets or share’ capital of any corporation in commerce and engaged in the business of producing and/or distributing salt; and the Commission having accordingly determined that respondent’s petition should be treated as a request. that the order be duly modified to exclude the above purchase from its purview; and It appearing from the facts stated in the petition and in the answer filed by counsel supporting the complaint, which joins in the request. that the petition be granted, that there is no reasonable probability that any of the anticompetitive effects proscribed by the relevant statute will result from the proposed purchase, and the Commission having further determined that the public interest now requires that this proceeding be reopened solely for the purpose of altering and modifying the order so that it shall not prohibit the respondent from effectuating such acquisition:

It ts ordered, That this proceeding be, and it hereby is, reopened and that paragraph 4 of the order to divest and to cease and desist be, and it hereby is, modified to read as follows:

(4) It is further ordered, That for a period of ten years from February 4, 1960, the respondent shall cease and desist from acquiring, directly or indirectly, through subsidiaries or otherwise, by merger, consolidation, or purchase, the physical assets, stock, share capital of, or any other interest in any corporation, in commerce, engaged in the business of producing and/or distributing salt in any form, specifically including salt in a dry state produced by any dry mining method, or produced by any evaporation method, and salt in brine; provided, however, that the respondent shall not be prohibited hereby from effectuating the proposed purchase of the assets referred to in the first paragraph of the Commission’s order ruling on the petition filed by the respondent on June 7, 1961.

J. & H. STOLOW, INC., ET AL.

Docket 7569. Order, Auy. 8, 1961 Order on recommendation of hearing examiner, granting respondents’ request to amend desist order of Dec. 19, 1959, 56 F.T.C, 674, and substituting modified order.

This proceeding having been reopened and the matter referred to a hearing examiner for the purpose of receiving evidence in support of and in opposition to the respondents’ request. for modification of the consent. order to cease and desist contained in the hearing examiner’s initial decision, filed November 5, 1959, which decision became the decision of the Commission on December 19, 1959; and The Commission having considered the evidence received and having determined that the recommendation of the hearing examiner to grant respondents’ request to amend the cease and desist order is justified and should be adopted and that respondents’ alternative request. to rescind the order should be denied: :

It is ordered, That respondents’ request. for a modified order made. in their motion of October 12, 1960, be, and it hereby is, granted.

It is further ordered, That respondents’ alternative request that the Consent Order be rescinded made in their motion of October 12, 1960, be, and it hereby is, denied.

It is further ordered, That the hearing examiner’s initial decision, filed November 5, 1959, and the Commission’s decision adopting it, issued December 18, 1959, be, and they hereby are, modified by striking the order contained in such initial decision and substituting therefor the following:

ORDER

[t ts ordered, That respondents, J. & H. Stolow, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Julius Stolow, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the sale of postage or other stamps or of adhesive labels having the appearance of postage stamps, in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Representing that stamps and adhesive labels having the appearance of postage stamps are valid stamps, unless such stamps and labels are, or were, valid for the payment of some type of internal or external mail service, or were produced under the authority of authorized officials of a recognized or existing government.

2. In connection with the advertising and offering for sale of specific stamps or adhesive labels failing to reveal:

(a) That such stamps or labels are not valid for or were not issued for postal use, or were not issued by a government recognized by the United States, when such are the facts.

(b) Clearly and conspicuously in advertising that nothing therein is to be construed as a representation that the stamps offered are presently valid for postal use, or that they are stamps issued by a government recognized by the United States.

This order shall not apply to institutional or other advertising which does not offer for sale any specific stamp or stamps. It ts further ordered, That the respondents herein shal], within sixty

(60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Conmission a report, in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the modified order to cease and desist.