Glamorene, Inc.

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

in which he has complied with this order.

Tile )LATTER OF GLA.vlORE , IKC.

ORDER, ETC., IX REGARD TO Tile A, LLI' GED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COM).f!SSION ACT Docket 8088. Complaint, Aug. 1960-DecisjoH , Feb. 2, 1962 Order requiring a Clifton, l\ , distrilmtur of rug and uplwlstery cleaning shampoos to jobbers and retailers, to cease representing falsely in ad,er- Using in magazines and newspapers, and on televisiull ami radio, that its rug cleaning device "Glamurenc Rug Shampoo, ,,,hen used with its rug shampoo, was as effective as prufessional cleaning, and would clean merely by spreading the sbampoo oyer a rug or carpet. COl\IPI,- Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Con1l11ission Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, thc Federal , aTrade Commission, having reason to believe that Glamorene, Ine. corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has 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:

PARAGRArn 1. Respondent Glamorene, Inc., is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Kew York, "\ith its principal offce and place of business located at 175 Entin Road in the city of Clifton, State of New Jersey. 228 FEDERAL TIV.DE CO::vE\iission DECISIOXS Complaint 60 P.

PAn. 2. Respondent is now, and for some time last past has been engaged in the advertising, offering for sale, sale and distribution of rug and upholstery cleaning devices and rug and upholstery cleaning shaulpoos, to distributors and jobbers and to retailers for resale to the public.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of its business, respondent now causes, and for SOUle time last past has caused, its said products, when sold, to be shipped from its place of business in the State of Nmy .Jersey to purchasers thereof located in various other States of the United States and in the District of Columbia. and maintaiu3, and at all times herein mentioned has maintained substantial course of trade in said products in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 4. In the course and conduct of its business, and for the purpose of inducing the sale of its products, respondent ha.s made certain statements with respect to the cleaning abilities and qualities of its products, in aclvertismnents in magazines of national circulation, on television, on radio and in newspapers, of which the following are typical:

"ow' SHA)IPOO YOUR RUGS WITH PROFESSIONAL RESULTS . . . no stooping or scrubbing! It' s 80 en8y with the new GLAj\IORENE RUG Sila1\POO' Here s all :rou do :

1. Fil tank with Glflmorene Shampoo solutioll. 2. Set exclusive "FOA)'I CO:KTROL" dial for the right amount of Shampoo Foam needed for your rug.

3. Simply guide RUG SHA::IPOO'ER over carpet, and see instant results. Oversize sponge roller and extra-long ;'EASE-FLEX" bristles beautifully deepclean an a vera go room size rug in 20 minutes! PAR. 5. Through the use of the aforesaid statements, respondent represented that its rug c1meaning device, kno n as a "Glmnorene R.ug Shampoo " \\"hen used "with its rug shan1poo, is as effective in cleaning rugs and carpets as professional.l rug or carpet cleaning, and win clean a rug or ca.l)et merely by spreading the shan1poo over a rug or carpet.

PAR. 6. Said statements and representations are false, misleading and deceptive. In ti'uth and in fact said " Glamorene R.ug Shampoo " and rug shampoo arc not as effective in cleaning rugs and carpets as professional rug or carpet cleaning, and they will not dean a rug or carpet 111erely by spreading the rug shmnpoo over a rug or carpet.

GLAMORENE , r:\c. 229 227 Initial Decision PAR. 7. In the course and conduct of its business, at all times mentioned herein, respondent hasbecn in substantial competition, in C01TImerCe, with corporations, firms and individuals in the sale of products of the same general kind and nature as those sold by respondent.

PAR. 8. The use by respondent of the aforesaid false, misleading (l,ud deceptive statements, representations and practices Im.B had, a.nd now has, the capacity and tendency to nlislcad members of the purchasing public into the erroneous and 1nistaken belief that said staternents and representations were and arc true and into the purchase of substantial qU:1utities of respondent's products by reason of saiel cl'roneousand mistaken belief. As a consequence thereof, substantial trade in COITllllCrCe has been, and is being, unfairly diverted to respondent from its conlpetitoI's and substantial injury has thereby been, and is being, done to competition in COll11nerce. PAR. 9. The aforesaid acts and pra,ctices of respondent, as herein aJ1eged, were and arc all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondent's competitors and constituted, and now constitute, unfair and deceptive ads and practices and unfair methods of competition, in comlnerce, within the intent and1neaning of the Fec1enl1 Trade Comnlission Act.

lift. Frederick J. L1 c111 anus supporting the complaint. Rogers, Hoge cD Hils by ilh. And)",," J. Graham of New York , for respondent.

INITIAl.. DEClSIOX BY J URN LEWIS, HR.:\RIXG EXA:iITXER STA TE:\fENT OF PHOCEEDIXGS The Federal Trado Commission issued its complaint against. the above-named respondent on August 2,1, 1960, charging it with engaging in Ullfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, in commerce, within the meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act, by misrepresenting the cleaning abilities and qualities of its rug cleaning products. After be.ing served with said complaint respondent appeflrec1 by counsel and thereafter filed its answer in which it admitted in part and denied in part having made the representations charged, and denied that insofar a.s it had nlac1e such representations they were false, misleading and deceptive. IIe n'ings on the charges were thereafter held before the undersigned hearing examiner in 'Vashington, D. , and New York, New 719-603--64-- 230 FEDERAL TRADE CO \nSSION DECISIONS Inital Decision 60 P.

York, on various dates between May 17, 1961 and September 21, 1961. At said hearings, testimony and other evidence were offe.red in support of and in opposition to the allegations of the complaint, the same being duly recorded and filed in the offce of the Commission. All parties were represented by counsel and were afforded full oportunity to be heard and to examine and cross-examine 'witnesses. At the close of all the evidence, and pursuant to leave granted by the undersigned proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and an order were fied by both parties on November 15 1961.

After having carefully rcveiwed the entire record in t.his proceeding, and the proposed findings l conclusions and order, the undersigned finds that this proceeding is in the interest of the public and, based on the entire record and from his observation of the witnesses, makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT I. The Business of Respondent, Interstate Commerce and Competition 1. R.respondent, Glamorel1e" Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the l tws of the State of New York with its principal offce and place of business located at 175 Entin Road in the city of Clifton, State of New Jersey. 2. Respondent is now, and for some tinle last past, has been, engaged in the advertising, offering for sale, sale and distribution of rug and carpet cleaning devices and shanlpoos to distributors and jobbers and to retailers for resale to the public.

3. In the course and conduct of its business, respondent now causes and for some time last past has caused, its products when sold, to be shipped from its place of business in the State of X ew Jersey to purchasers thereof located in various other states of the lJnlted States and in the Dist.rict of Columbia, and maintains, and at all times herein ment.ioned has maintained, n substantial course of trade in said products in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Comlnission Act.

4. In the course and conduct of its business, respondent has been at a.11 times herein mentioned, in direct and substantial competition in commerce, with other corporations, firms and individuals in the sale of products of the same kind and nat,ure as those sold by respondent.

1 Proposed findings not herein adopted, either in the form proposed or in substance. are rejecter1 as not supported by the record or as involving immaterial matters. GLAMOR EKE) INC. 231 227 Initial Dedsioll II. The Alleged Illegal Practices B aclcgro-nnd and Issues 1. The allegations of misrepresentation revolve about certain st.atements made by respondent, in advertisements appearing in magazines and newspapers, concerning its rug cleaning device or applicator, known as the "Glamorene. Rug Shampoo, and its liquid rug shampoo, for the purpose of inducing the purchase of said products by customers. Respondent also sells and distributes a rug cleaning compound in powdered forth. However, the latter product is not referred to in the complaint, and counsel supporting the complaint has agreed that this proceeding does not involve the Glamorene powder.

2. The complaint charges that respondent has made false, misleading and dece.ptive statements concerning its applicator and liquid rug shampoo in two respects, (1) that ",vhen the applicator is used with the shampoo, it is as effective in cleaning rugs a.nd carpets as professional rug or carpet cleaning and (2) that a rug or carpet may be cleaned merely by spreading the SlUl.1poo with the applicator over the rug 01' carpet. Respondent admits having represented that its applicator and shampoo, ",vhen used together, will give professional results a.nd claims that such representation is true. It denies, however, having represented that these products ",vill clean a rug or carpet merely by spreading the shnm poo over the rug or carpet. The issues therefore, are whether the first form of representation challenged by the complaint is false, and whether the second form of representation W , in fact made by respondent.

3. Before c.onsidering the cluuges further, it should be noted that they are identical with t.hose heretofore considered by the exam.iller in his initial decision filed November 30 1961, in a proceeding involving respondent's competitor, Bissell, Inc. The Bissell case Docket No. 8086, involved fL number of additional forms of misrepresentation, but the principal issue, as in the instant ca, , was whether the respondent's product would clean rugs as effectively as the profeswitness in both cases sional method of rng cleaning. The principal was one Richard Xed Hopper, technical director of the Xational Institute of Hug Clear.ning, who eonductecl t test purporting to compare the effectiveness of several " do-it-yourself" home rug cleancrs (including those of the two respondents) with the method used by profcssional cleaners. lIopper s testimony in both records is sub- 2 R, 340-341, Inital Decision 60 F.

stantially identical, and revolves hugely about the test which he conducted.

4. There are t\\o principal cliffercnees between the record in this case from that in the Bissell case, viz, ((1,) Commission counsel in the Bissell case called two professi01ml cleaners whom he did !lot call in the instant case, the case-in-chief here consisting almost entirely of Hopper s testi111ony, and (b) respondent in the Bissell case elected not to call any "witnesses but relied almost entirely on the insufficiency of Hopper s testimony, whereas here respondent offered countervailing testimony through its own experts for the purpose of establishing the insuffciency of the Hopper test. In the interest of brevity the examiner will, from 6me t.o time, refer to his findings in the Bi/38ell case and incorporate them by reference into the instant decision, insofar as they involve the Hopper test and his testimony as to general cleaning procedures in the industry, which are substantially identical in both records.

Oompm'ison TV ith Professional Cleaning 5. As previously noted, the complaint charges respondent with having represented that its rug cleaning device, ,,,hen used with its shampoo, is as eif'active as professional rug or carpet cleaning. The record establishes that respondent, in advertising its applicator and shampoo, has stated: "Now: Shampoo your rugs with Professional Results . R.respondent does not deny ha,ving made this statement. While it claims that it has been discontinued, it does not rely on a defense of mootness, but asserts that the statement is true and that it has a right to make it. It is clear, and is so found, tha.t by advertising that its applicator and shampoo will yield "professional results" respondent has represented that they are as effective, in cleaning rugs and ca.rpets, as professional cleaning. The issue which is presented in this regard is whether the evidence establishes that respondent's claim is false nlisleading and deceptive. 6. As noted in the examiner s initial decision in the Bi/38ell case there are two principal methods of professional rug cleaning, (a) inplant cleaning and (b) home or on-location clear,ning. As the names imply, in-plant cleaning is done in a special rug cleaning plant using fixed machinery and equipment, whereas on-location cleaning is done in the home using portable equipment. The record in this proceeding is substantially similar to that in the Bissell case insofar as it reflects the nature of each of these methods. The examiner considers it unnecessary to describe in detail each of the 1nethods, but instead GLA:.10REKE, I 233 227 Inital Decision adopts the findings with respect thereto which he made in the Bissell case.

7. Counsel supporting the complaint contends that professional cleaning in the plant is more effective than on- location cleaning, citing Hopper s testimony that whereas 95% to 100% of the dirt may be removed in inhplant clca,ning, about 65% is the average of dirt removal in on-loeRtion cleaning. It may be noted that this testimony is at variance with that of one of the Government's own expe.rts in the Bissell case, who testified that it was possible to clean rugs as well in the home as in the plant, except for certain special situations. any event, it is the opinion of thc examiner that the contention of counsel supporting the complaint in this respect is wholly immaterial since, as noted in the Bissell decision, on-location cleaning is recognized as a form of professional cleaning. In the absence of evidence establishing that t.he public would receive the impression that a reference to professional cleaning denotes cleaning in a plant, the proper standard with which to compare respondent's product, insofar as determining whether it wdl clean as effectively as professional cleaning, is with the results achieved by professional cleaners in the home.

8. R.respondent's recommended method of rug cleaning is subst.antially similar to the on-location professional method. The instructions which come "ith the shampoo direct the housewife to, first vacuum or brush loose dirt; second, mix the shampoo in a solution of "arm water and pour it int.o the tank of the applicator; third, apply the solution to the rug with the Shampoo er (or, in the alternative with a long-handled brush); and, fourth, to brush the rug after it has dried. This basically, is the professional method, except that most professionals apply the detergent solution with a mechanical rotary brush, rather than with a, hand applicator, and a small perce.ntage follow this up with a wet-dry vacuum in the case of detergents which have a high foaming action. Also some of them use a rubber finger rake. or deck brush to erect the pile after the solution has been applied.

D. The record here, as in the Bi.ssell case G fails to disclose that the equipment and methods used in professional on-location cleaning are any more efiective in dirt removal than is respondent' s method. The cleaning in both instances is achieved, basically, by the application of 3 'this indndes pars. G-S, pp. 4-5 of the Bissell decision (1). ISO hereina. Bfsscll decision, par. 9, p. 5 (p. ISOJ.

r, Ill. par. 10 (p. 140J.

GId., par. IS, pp. 6-7 LPp. 141, 142J.

234 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISION& Initial Decision 60 F.

a detergent which causes the dirt to be loosened from the pile of the rug, so that it can later be picked up by a vacuum cleaner. There 'vas no chemical analysis made here to show that respondent's shampoo is any less effective in its detergent qualities than the detergents used by professional cleaners. On the contrary, the principal witness caUed by counsel supporting the complaint conceded that tests made by hinl in 1954 with Glamorene shampoo, disclosed t1111t it. '"as satisfactory for professional use as a detergent. Nor is there anything to show that the application of the detergent with a hand applicator is any Jess effective, in dirt removal, than applying it "with a mechanical rotary brush. The record here establishes, as in the Ris8ell case that while the mechanical rotary brush does the job more quickly and is more economical for commercial purposes, particularly ,vhere large areas are involved, a hand applicator if properly used can do just as effective a job in applying the detergent.

The record fails to establish that the additional equipment used by some professional cleaners \""ill necessarily result in a more effective cleaning job than the use of respondent's mctlwd and equipment. The use of the wet-dry vacuum is genera1Jy Jimited to detergents \\'ith a high foaming action, is used only by a S11n 11 percentage of profes sional cleaners and acts primarily to prevent oyer-wetting of the rug rather than to re1101;e dirt. The rubher finger rake or cleck brush is used to erect the pile because of the matting action of the heavy mechanical rotary brush. There is nothing to show that. such equipment is required with respondent.'s light hnnc1 applicator. \Vhile the principal witness called by counsel supporting the complaint n180 used ft commercial.1-type vacuurn for the final step of dirt removal in the socalled professional test. conducted by him, the record establishes that this step is normally performed by the. house\\'ife herself, using an ordinary home-type vacuum.

10. As in the Bissell case, the only evidence which purports to show that respondent's method of rug cleaning is not as eiIectiyc as that used by professional cleallers, is the test performed by Richard Ked I-Iopper under the auspices of his employer the N ationa.1lnstitute of Rug Cleaning (referred to herein as the NIRC). Respondents position with respect to the Hopper test. is essentially that of the respondent in the Bissell case, V1Z, t.hat. the test is lacking in objectivity due to the interest of the XIRC, as the spokesmnll for the professional cleaners, in the. outcome of this proceeding nncl, more importantly, that 7 H. 138-14I.

S This was omewbat reluctantly conceded by the principal witness for coun cl SllP1J0ling the l'ompJaint (R. 137).

GLAMORE , IXC. 235 227 Initial Derisioll the test is unscientific and lacking in validity insofar a.s establishing t.hat respondent's product is not as effective as professional cleaning. In addition to alluding to some of the deficiencies in the Hopper test relied upon by respondent in the Bissell case, respondent here also relies on the testimony of its own experts to support its position as to the scientific myworthiness of the test.

11. As noted in the Bissell decision, thc Hopper test im'olwcl the soiling of a number of samples of ,,-white carpeting and the cleaning thereof by various clear.ners and methods, and the taking of readings before and after the soiling and cleaning thereof, by a photo-electric device knmyn as the Gardner AutOlnatic Photometric unit 01' , for brevity, as the Gardner rcfiectometer.' Admittedly, the machine did not directly measure clirt or dirt removal, but record1edlight values in terms of degrees of grayness from white to black. As noted in the Bissell decision,Io tlh test. purports to silo"y that the, sam. ples clealled "yjtll l'cspondcn(s shampoo achieved it pel'cenbge of cleaning of 5:2.7%: based on the assumption that there is 11 eOl'relnt-on uchveen the change in light valm's and the removal of dirt. The samples cleanc(l by the profe sional method purported to show it percentage of cleaning of 68. based on the same Hssmnption. 12. It was conceded by Hoppcr ihat the application of the detergent to the samples cleaned "yitll rE'sponclen(s product, did nothing to remove any s1!bstantial amount of dirt from the samples since the detergent TI' onld merely have. the tendency to loosen the dirt from the pile, but "Toulc1 not. remove it to any substantial extent ,,\ithollt a final vacll11ming. Since the mal1ufacturer s directions did not. prescribe f1 fina.l vacuuming of the rug, but merely a brushing thereof the final vacnuming step "-as not. performed. Thus, without there being any step taken to actually remo\-e the dirt, the samples cleancd ';ith respondent s shampoo purported to shm, a very substantial rul101llt of dirt removal, according to the rea (ling made on the reflectometer and TTopper s theory that. the change in light values is a reliable. indicator of dirt removal.

13. One e.xplanation of this situation, "which has already been discussed in the Bissell decisjon l1 is that the dirt had merely been redistributed by the application of thc detergent. Since the reflectometer only obtains a light reflection of an area the size, of a 50-cent piece 12 a shifting of the dirt from the Hrca on the sample read by the refiectometer, to the snrronndjng area, would cause a change in light See Bissell decision, par. 15, pp. 8-9 (pp. 142 143Iwrein). Ir. par. , at p. ll rp. 144).

11 Ibid.

R. 167, ,, Initial Decision 60 )".

values but not establish the extent of dirt removal from the rug as a whole. If this condition can be considered to account for the reading made all the samples cleaned with respondent's shampoo, it is equally possible, if not more so, that it affected the reading taken of the samples cleaned by the so-called professional method. As inclicated in the Bissell decision 13 the samples cleaned were less than a foot square fl1cl were mounted on a plywood board 4 x 6 feet, where they "'ere surrouuded by clean carpeting. .While the do-it-yoursclf detergents (including respondent's) were applied manually to the soiled samples and, at most, overlapped an area of about six inches of the surrounding clean carpeting, the heavy mcc1m.nical rotary brush (operating at 175 r/p/m), which was used on the samples cleaned by the professional method, covered most of the 4 x G foot area in the process of applying the detergent to the soiled samples. Obviously, under these circumstances, there would be a greater tendency to disperse the dirt from the soiled samples to the clean carpeting, a fact to \yhieh one of the experts cancel by respondent attestecl.14 A reading taken of the originally soiled area " onJd not truly reflect the ability of the, professional method to rml10ve dirt from the carpet a.s a whole. 14. The expert witnesses called by respondent, consisting of respondent's chemical director and the former technical director of the J'IRC both expressed the opinion that the reflectometer has serious limitations as fl device for measuring dirt removal They pointed out that the light I'nlues which the reflectometer records can be affected by a number of factors other than soil removal, such as the texture of the pile of the carpet, the angle at which the reflectometer is placed in rehl!ionship to the carpet, the type and color of the soil involved, and the presence or absence of optical brighteners in the carpet or in the detergent.

13. Of particular note, is the testimony of Col .Tames ,Y. Rice Hopper s predecessor as technical director of the XIRC. Although Co!. Rice had arranged for the purchase of the Gardner reflectometer while he ".as with the J'IJtC and had developed the techniqucs of its use as a testing device, he stated that before he had left the IRC he had come to the conclusion that it had serious limitations as a measure of dirt removal ,YhiJc he was of the view that the reflectometer did hn,ye yalue as a testing device, he considered it necessary to test as many as t\T8nty samples (instead of the four tested by Hopper) order to assure a reasonable degree of reliability, and to take five rea.dings on each sample (instead of four readings as "as clone by Hopper). 1:1 Pp. J 1-12 (p. 143 herein).

11 R. 32.

, GLA)'10RENE , INC. 237 227 Initial Decision He was further of the opinion that the mechanical test should be verified by a visual jury test. 1\0 reason has been suggested why the testimony of Col. Rice, who was Hopper s predecessor and teacher and \Vas recognized by flopper as an "outstanding expert" in the field, should not be accepted as reliable and worthy of credit. 16. Indicative of the questionable reliability of the Hopper test, as an indicator of dirt removal, is the wide variation in readings obtained on a, number of the sanlples cleaned with the same detergent. Thus the four samples cleaned by one do-it-yourself detergent powder sho\\"ed readings varying from a low of -3.8% to a high of 10.3%; the samples clcaned by another product purported to show percentages of eJeaning ranging from 13.2% to 35.7%; and those cleaned with another detergent showed variations frolll 21.6% to 47.8%. Re,spondent's experts were of the opinion that a range of 20% or more in the samples tested, and particular.rly the minus reading obtained from one of the samples, was indicative of the test's lack of reliability flnd of the necessity for testing more tlUU1 four sa.mples to obtain a result which would be scientifically meaningful.

17. Even if the Hopper test is accepted as having a reasonable measure of scient.ific accuracy, insofar as indicating whether re,spond. ent' s product will or will not clean as effectively as the professional method, it fails to establish that respondent s product ,,,il not do so. As previously noted, the test purported to show a percentage of cleaning achjeved by respondent's shampoo of 52. 7%, even though no steps had been taken to remove any substantial mnount of dirt from the samples. All that Hoppcr did after ilpplying thc detergent "as to brush the samples when they were dry, but he did not thereilfter I.racnum them as is, customary. He conceded that even in professional cleaning, it is the subsequent vacuuming by the house"ife which actually removes the bulk of the dirt from the rug. He Jike"ise conceded that if the samples cleaned with respondent's product had been given a final vacuuming, it is probable that there 1\oulcllu1. ve been as much dirt removed as in those cleaned by the professional me.thocl. The evidence also suggests that Hoppcr could have obtained even better results than those which he achieved on the samples cleaned with respondent's product, if he had used respondent's applicator in applying thc shampoo. The complaint charges that respondent' appZ'icator when used with its shampoo, is not as effective as professional cleaning. Hopper did not use respondent s applicator, but used a 15 Hopper conceded this would he so, provided there was no optical brightener in respondent' s prouuct. There is not a scintila of evidence to imlicate that respomlent' shamlJiO (locs contlin any bri;;l1telJel' 01' lJleaclJ. 238 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISION& Initial Decision 60 F.

brush instead because the directions which came with the shampoo suggested this as an a.alternative method. However, according to the test.imony of respondent' s president, the applicator, which applies the shampoo through a roller made of polyethylene material, does a more effective job in applying the detergent than does a brush. 18. Hopper s explanation for not. vacuuming the samples after they had been cleaned with respondent's product was that the directions did not specifically so state. The directions do provide that the rug should be brushed after it has dried. The record diseJoscs that if a rug is brushed or swept long and hard enough there will ultimately be as much dirt removed as ",-jtb a vacuum. However, for practical every-day purposes, a vacuum is the preferable method for the housewife. R.espondenfs explanation for not specifically stating, in its instructions, that the rug should be vacuumed after it has been cleaned ,,'ith the shampoo is that the housewife ordinarily does this as a matter or regular routine without specific instructions. 'Vhile it may be that it would be desirable to spell out this step specifically in the instructions, its omission does not establish that respondent' s shampoo when applied with its applicator, will not clean a. rug as effectively as professional cleaning.

19. Based on the record as a whole, including the evidence above discussed, it is concluded and found that counsel supporting the complaint has failed to sustain the burden of proving by reliable, probative and subst.antial evidence that re.spondent:s shampoo, when applied with its applicator known as the "Glamorene Rug Shampoo, \\'ill not ckan ft rug or carpel as effe.ctively as professional rug or carpet cleaning.

Cleaning ill erely by Spnading 20. The compla.int charges respondent with having represented that its applicator, when used with its rug shampoo, will dean a rug or Ga.rpet me.re.1y by spreading the shampoo over the rug or carpet. Respon(lent denies having made any such representation. To resolvc this issue, it is necessary to examine respondent's advertising material which is in evidence.

21. In addition to stating that its product win "Shampoo your rugs wit.h Professional Hesults, a number of respondent:s advertisements contain the following stat.ements:

. no stooping or scrubbing:

It' s 80 ea.sy with the new GLAyIORE"E Reg SHAMPOO' Here s all you do:

1. Fil tank with Glamorene Shampoo solution. GLA:vORENE , ISC. 239 227 Initial Decision 2. Set exclusive "FOA)'I COXTROL" dial for the right allonnt of Shampoo Foam needed for your rug.

3. Simply guide RUG SHA)'IPOO' ER over carpet, and see instant results. Oversize sponge roller and extra-long "EASE-FLEX" bristles beautifully deepclean an average room size rug in 20 minutes! 22. Respondent argues that telling the housewife she must "simply guide:' the "Shampooe.r" over the rug is not tantamount to telling her that the rug will become clean merely by sprmLding the shampoo over it. Respondent apparently concedes that something more than mere spreading of the shampoo is necessary, and that a certain amount of agitation or brushing action is necessary or required in order for the shampoo to penetrate the rug suffcicntly to loosen the dirt. 23. In the opinion of the examiner, when respondent' s advertising material is read as a whole, it conveys the impression that little or no eport is required in 'cleaning a rug or carpet. In the context of its use the direction to "simply guide" the applicator suggests that no pressure or agitation is required, and that the rug \"ill automatica.lly become clean as the sha.mpoo is released following the setting of the Foam Control" dial.

24. The record establishes that a rug cannot be cleaned in this effortless manner. As respondent's own directions on the label indicate prcliminal'Y vacuuming or brushing is required. Furthermore, the shmnpoo must be applied \with a reasonable amount of dowrnvarcl pressure or brushing act.ion, in order t.o secure effect.i ve penet.ration of the rug. A test conducted on respondent' s behalf, \,which is in t.he record! indicates that a nlcre light, horizontal spreading of the shr.m poo suffcient to wet the top of the rug, but with no downward pressure will not re.sult in effective penetration. It is also necessary to vacuum the rug after it hfts dried. The rug will not dry "a deep-cJea.u * * in 20 minut.es" after the application of the shampoo, as respondent's advertisements suggest.

25. It is concluded and found that, (a.) respondents advertisements convey the impression that rugs cnn be cleaned merely by spreading on its shampoo with its applicator, using little or no effort, and (b) the statements made by it to this effect are false, misleading and dec.eptive in that rugs cannot be cleaned merely by spreading the shampoo on the rug and letting it dry, but additional effort and steps ale required.

CONCL17SIONS 1. The use by respondent of the statements, representations and practices hereinabove found to be false, misleading and deceptive has had, and now has, the capacity and tendency to mislead members 240 FEDERAL TRADE COM IISSION DECISIONS Decision and Order 60 Y. of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said statements and represent.ations were and are true, and into the pure-hase of substantial quantities of respolldenes products by reason or said erroneous and mistaken belief. As a consequence t.hereof, it may be interred that substftJtial trade in commerce has been, and is being, unfairly diverted to respondent from its competitors and that substantial injury has been, and is being, clone to competition in commerce.

2. The acts and practicps of respondent, as thus found, ",were, and are, an to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents competitors and constituted, and now constitute, lUlfair and c1eceptiye acts and practices l-d unfair methods of competition, in commerce. within the intent a.nd mea,ning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. 3. The allegfldon of paragraph 6 of the complaint, that respondent has fa.1sely represented that its rug cleaning device and shflmpoo are. l'.s effective. in cleaning rugs and carpets as professional cleaning, has not been sustained and should, accordingly, be dismissed. ORDER It ,is oi'dci'ed That Glamorene, Inc., n corporation, and its officers employees, agents and representatives, directly or through any corpOTrlte or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of any rug cleaning device and rug shampoo in commerce as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission ..\.ct, do forthwith cease and desist from representing, directly or by implication, that any such rug cleaning de.vice and rug shampoo will clean a rug or carpet merely by spreading the shampoo on the rug or carpet and allowing it to dry.

It is lW'tLeT ordered That the complaint be, and the same hereby , dismissed insofar as it allege.s that the statements and representations made by respondent, to the effect that its rug applicator and rug shampoo are as effective in cleaning rugs and carpets as professional rug or carpet cleaning, are false, misleading, and deceptive. DECISION 01' THE COJnnSSlOK AXD ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COl\PLL-\ Pursmmt to Section 4.19 of the Commission s Rules of Practice eft' active July 21 : 1961 : the initial decision of t.he hearing examiner shall, on the 2c1 dny of February 1962, become tlh decision of the Commission; Hnd acc.ordingly:

1 t is ordered That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, file lTith the Commission a report in '"\Tit.ing sett.ng forth in detail the manner and form in which it hns complied with the oreler to cease and desist. THE REGmA CORP. 241 Complain t