Papercraft Corporation

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

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS, ETC. 1069 parative prices, and the usual and customary retail prices of merchandise, and as to savings afforded to purchasers, and similar representations of the type dealt with in Paragraphs I (a) and (b), 2 and 3 of this order, are based, and from which the validity of any such claim can be established. THE PAPERCRAFT CORPORATION Docket 8779. \ 01"der, Aug. 27, 1969 Order denying respondent' s motion for issuance of requests for special reports from 510 companies pursuant to Section 6 (b) of the FTC Act. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ISSUE SECTION 6(b) REPORTS This matter is before the Commission upon the examiner s certification of August 1 , 1969 , of respondent's motion of July 30 1969, for the issuance of special reports pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Respondent states that it "has strong reason to believe that the figures recited in the complaint regarding the size of the market are grossly understated, and incorrect to an exceptional degree. Hence, respondent argues that only through the use of Section 6 (b) reports can a reasonably accurate estimate of the market be obtained. Respondent seeks to survey 510 companies. The examiner recommends that respondent' s motion be denied because respondent has failed to demonstrate that it cannot obtain equally probative and substantial evidence without a Section 6 (b) survey. The examiner also states that he does not agree with respondent' s assertion that a denial of the motion would constitute a denial of a due process.

'Ve concur in the examiner s recommendation. Accordingly, It is ordered That respondent's motion for the issuance of special reports pursuant to Section 6 (b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act be, and it hereby is, denied. Commissioners Elman and Nicholson concurring in the result. BANTAM BOOKS , INC.

Docket li802. Opinion nnd Order, Sept. , 1969 Order denying respondent' s request that it be permitted to use new titles for its reprinted books.

OPINION OF THE COM IISSION Respondent has filed a petition to reopen this proceeding, seeking to have the order, which was issued November 24, 1958, and modified by Commission order of October 28 , 1968, further modified so that respondent will no longer be required to disclose the original English title under which a book has been published outside the United States.

Paragraph 2 of the order entered by the Commission on November 24 , 1958, prohibited respondent, a major seller and distributor of paperback books, from using' a new title in place of the original title of a reprinted book. The order was subsequently modified on October 28 , 1968. ' As modified, Paragraph 2 of the order prohibits respondent from:

Using 01' substituting a new title in place of the title under which a book was first published in the English language unless a statement which reveals the first English language title and that it has been published previously thereundcr and each and every title under which said book was previously published in the English language in the United States and that it has been published IJr€viously thereunder appears in clear, conspicuous type upon the front cover and upon the title page of the book, either in immediate connection with the title or in another position adapted readily to attract the attention of a prospective purchaser.

Respondent states that thc purpose of the order is to protect a consumer in the United States from purchasing the same book twice, under different titles. It urges that this purpose will be fulfilled if the order is modified to prohibit it from: Using or substituting a new title ill place of the title under which a book was first published in the :English language in the United States unless a statement which reveals the first English language title in the United States and that it has been published previously thereunder and each and every title under \which said book was previously published in the English language in the United States and that it lias been published previously there- 1 Similar orders against other publishers of paperback books were earlier modified in similar fashion on January 11, 1965 , in New American Lib?'aTY of World Liten/.w' , Inc. Docket O. 5811 (as revised October 28 , 1968) (74 C. 1109), and A. 4. Wyn, Inc. Docket No. 6792 (74 F. C. 1113). INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS, ETC. 1071 under appears in clear, conspicuous type upon the front cover' and upon the title page of the book, either in immediate connection ,with the title or in an other position adapted readily to attract the attention of a prospective purchaser.

Respondent contends that the public interest does not require disclosure of a title under which a book was previously published in the English language outside the United States and that the modification of the order to require disclosure only of the English language titles previously used in the United States wi1 meet the purposes of the order.

We are not persuaded by respondent's argument. If the order were modified as Bantam requests, respondent could publisb, under a new title, a book originally published outside the United States in an English-speaking country without disclosure of that title. Those who purchase books by mail from such countries may well be deceived into believing that a retitled reprint is a different work. Even if not misled into purchasing the same book twice, purchasers of the retitled boo!, may believe they are buying S01l1ething which they are not a new or unfamiliar ,,,ark by an author "vhose 11a111€ is familiar to them rather than a work by that author \vhieh they have seen review\vecl or otherwise know under a different title.

Respondent also contends that the present requirements of the order "could possibly C lose confusion for consumers might assume that the previous English language title was used in the United States when such is not the case. " The short answer to that argument is that such confusion can be avoided by a clear disclosure of the fads accompanying the disclosure of the original English title.

\Ve do not think that respondent has made a convincing showing that it would he in the public interest to modify the order so that disclosure of the original title of retitled books published outside the United States should no longer be required. Therefore, respondent's petition win be denied. An appropriate order wil be entered.

2 Respondent indicates that it reads the order as requiring the disclosure of all former English language titJes used outside the United States; however, it is only the original English language title of the titles used outside the United States which must be disclosed under the order