Optical Products Industry
16 CFR Part 192 · Trade practice rules · in the Code of Federal Regulations 1966-1978 (12 annual editions)
Scanned CFR pages, OCR text may contain errors; the linked Library of Congress PDF is the authority. Not legal advice; not affiliated with the FTC. These rules and guides are historical: most were rescinded or replaced, so do not assume any is in force.
Latest edition: Library of Congress, 1978 CFR · Earliest edition: 1966 CFR
Text (1978 edition, OCR)
§ 175.26
eration is available on proportionally
equal terms to all other customers of
such member competing in the distri-
bution of such products.
(1) As used in this paragraph, the
certain services or facilities referred to
are such as are furnished by or
through the customer in connection
with the processing, handling, sale, or
offering for sale, of such industry
member’s products.
(d) Prohibited discrimination in ser-
vices or facilities. In the sale of indus-
try products bought for resale, with or
without processing, it is an unfair
trade practice for any member of the
industry to discriminate in favor of
One purchaser against another pur-
chaser by furnishing certain services
or facilities upon terms not accorded
to all purchasers on proportionately
equal terms.
(1) Sald services or facilities referred
to in this paragraph are such as are
connected with the processing, han-
dling, sale, or offering for sale, of the
products purchased, and the term
“furnishing” as used in this paragraph
shall be construed as including con-
tracting to furnish, and contributing
to the furnishing of, the services or fa-
cilities.
(e) Inducing or receiving an illegal
discrimination in price. It is'an unfair
trade practice for any member of the
industry, in the course of commerce in
which he is engaged knowingly to
induce or receive a discrimination in
price which is prohibited by the provi-
sions of this section.
(f) Exemptions. The inhibitions of
this section shall not apply to pur-
chases of their supplles for their own
use by schools, colleges, universities,
public libraries, churches, hospitals,
and charitable institutions not operat-
ed for profit.
(Sec. 2, 38 Stat. 739, as amended, secs. 2, 3,
4, 49 Stat. 1527, 1528, ch. 283, 52 Stat. 446;
15 U.S.C. 13, 13a, 13b, 13c, 21a)
§ 175.26 Aiding or abetting use of unfair
trade practices.
It is an unfair trade practice for any
person, firm, or corporation to aid,
abet, coerce, or induce another, direct-
ly or indirectly, to use or promote the
use of any unfair trade practice speci-
Titie 16—Commercial Practices
fied in the regulations trade practice
specified in this part.
Grovr II
§ 175.101 Record keeping.
The industry approves of the prac-
tice that every seller of office ma-
chines shall kecp an accurate record of
all machines sold showing date of sale,
make, type, serial number, model
number, condition, and purchaser’s
name and address, which record shall
be kept for a period of not less than 5
years after each sale.
COMMITTEE ON TRADE PRACTICES
§ 175.201 Industry committee.
The provisions of §16.1:! of this
chapter shall be applicable to an in-
dustry committee established under
this part.
{21 FR 1174, Feb. 21, 1956]
PART 192—OPTICAL PRODUCTS
INDUSTRY
Sec.
192.0 The industry and its products de-
fined.
192.1 Deception (general).
192.2 False advertising of non-prescription
magnifying spectacles.
192.3 False advertising of contact lenses.
192.4 Bait advertising.
192.5 Guarantees, warranties, etc.
192.6 Deceptive pricing.
192.7 Prohibited payments by dispensers to
doctors: prohibited tying of refractions
with dispensing, etc.
192.8 Prohibited discrimination.
192.9 Deception as to origin or place of
manufacture.
192.10 Misreprescnting products as con-
forming to a standard.
192.11 Misrepresentation as to character of
business.
192.12 False invoicing.
192.13 Consignment distribution.
192.14 Commercial bribery.
192.15 False disparagement of competitors
or their products.
192.16 Coercing purchase of one product as
@ prerequisite to purchase of another or
other products.
192.17 Inducing breach of contract.
192.18 Enticing away employees of com-
Petitors.
116CFR 16.1 was deleted at 36 FR 3116,
Feb. 18, 1971.
60
Chapter l—Federal Trade Commission
Sec. :
192.19 Deceptive use or imitation or simu-
lation of trade or corporate names,
trade-marks, etc.
192.20 Prohibited forms of trade restraints
(unlawful price fixing, etc.)
192.21 Exclusive dealing.
APPENDIX
Avurnonrry: Secs. 6, 5, 38 Stat. 721, 710; 15
U.8.C. 46, 45, unless otherwise noted.
Source: 27 FR 6222, June 30, 1962, unless
otherwise noted.
$192.0 The industry and its products de-
fined.
(a) Members of the industry are per-
sons, firms, corporations, or organiza-
tions engaged in the manufacture, pro-
cessing, assembly, sale, offering for
sale, or distribution of any kind of in-
dustry products as the term “industry
products” is defined in paragraph (b)
of this section.
(b) The term “industry products,’’ as
used in paragraph (a) of this section
and in the following sections, includes
eyeglasses and contact ienses which
are designed to provide correction and
improvement of eyesight, and parts
(enses, frames, etc.) or accessories
therefor. As here used, the term “eye-
glasses’ includes spectacles and eye-
glass clip-ons having nonprescription
magnifying lenses, as well as eye-
glasses with prescription lenses. Sung-
lasses, goggles and safety spectacles
which are designed solely for the pro-
tection of eyes or eyesight, as distin-
guished from correction or improve-
ment of eyesight, are not included; nor
are precision lenses for tclescopes, bin-
oculars, etc., to be considered as in-
cluded.
NorTE: It is to be understood that the word
“sale,” as used in paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion and in the sections which follow, is to
be construed as including the dispensing of
prescription eyeglasses or contact lenses by
ophthalmologists, oculists, physicians, or
optometrists, to their patients, as well as
the dispensing of such products by opticians
to their customers.
§ 192.1 Deception (general).
(a) It is an unfair trade practice for
any industry member to sell or offer
for sale any industry product under
any representation, circumstances, or
condition, having the capacity and
tendency or effect of deceiving a pur-
61
§ 192.2
chaser or prospective purchaser in any
material respect.
(b) Among the practices which are
to be regarded as prohibited by para-
graph (a) of this section are advertise-
ments and sales presentations in news-
papers, magazines, catalogues, tele-
phone directories, radio or television
broadcasts, or otherwise, which de-
ceive purchasers or prospective pur-
chasers with respect to:
(1) The composition, construction,
design, type, quality, durability, or ef-
ficacy of any industry product or part
thereof;
(2) The identity of the manufactur-
er, processor, or distributor of any in-
dustry product or part thereof;
(3) The conformance of contact
lenses, and lenses and frames of eye-
glasses, to the requirements of the
purchaser as prescribed by an ophthal-
mologist, oculist, physician, or optom-
etrist;
(4) The extent of vision improve-
ment that may reasonably be expected
from use of the advertised eyeglasses
or contact lenses;
(5) The probable length of time that
the lenses of an advertised product
will be satisfactory for use by the
wearer without need for polishing,
processing, or replacement; or
(6) The immunity or degree of resis-
tance possessed by an industry prod-
uct, or part thereof, with respect to
breakage, discoloration, tarnish, or
corrosion. (Rule 1]
§ 192.2 False advertising of non-prescrip-
tion magnifying spectacles,
It is an unfair trade practice for any
industry member to publish, or cause
to be published, any advertisement or
sales presentation relating to non-pre-
scription magnifying spectacles (some-
times referred to as ready-made spec-
tacles) which represents, directly or by
implication, that the spectacles so of-
fered will correct, or are capable of
correcting, defects in vision of persons,
uniess it is clearly and conspicuously
disclosed in the advertisement or sales
presentation that the correction of de-
fects in vision by such products is
limited to persons approximately 40
years of age and older who do not
have astigmatism or diseases of the
eye and who require only simple mag-
§ 192.3
nifying or reducing ienses; or to pub-
lish or cause to be published any ad-
vertisement or sales presentation
which has the capacity and tendency
or effect of deceiving purchasers or
prospective purchasers in any other
material respect. [Rule 2]
§192.3 False advertising of contact lenses.
It is an unfair trade practice, in the
offering for sale, sale, or distribution
of contact lenses, for an industry
member to publish or cause to be pub-
lished any advertisement which repre-
sents directly or by implication that
contact ienses:
(a) Are suitable and safe for all per-
sons, regardless of their age, health, or
eye condltion;
(b) Can be worn satisfactorily and
without discomfort by all, or nearly
all, persons;
(c) Can be fitted without any dis-
comfort;
(ad) Can be worn for any short or
long period without discomfort uniess
the advertisement clearly reveals that
practically all persons will experience
some discomfort when first wearing
them and that in a significant number
of cases the discomfort period may be
prolonged;
(e) Can be worn all day without dis-
comfort by any person except after
that person has become fully adjusted
thereto and uniess such is the fact;
(f) Will completely replace eye-
glasses in all, or nearly all, cases, or
will provide better correction of vision
than eyeglasses in all, or nearly all,
cases;
(g) Which are bifocal are as satisfac-
tory to the wearer as prescription eye-
glasses having bifocal lenses;
(h) Will correct all defects in vision;
(i) Will stay in place under all condi-
tions; or under any specified condi-
tions when such is not the fact;
(j) Are unbreakable in all circum-
stances; or are unbreakable in any in-
dicated circumstances when such is
not the fact;
(k) Can be adequately tried without
financial obligation, uniess such is the
act;
(1) Will protect the eyes, uniess such
representation is limited in application
to the portion of the eyes covered by
such lenses and does not denote or
62
Titie 16—Commerciai Practices
connote a greater degree of protection
to such portion, than is in fact the
case;
(m) Do not rest upon, or have con-
tact with, the eyes;
(n) Are more comfortable than all
other types or kinds of contact lenses;
(When represented as more comfort-
able than all other types or kinds,
they must be of unique design or con-
struction or have unique features,
which assure of comfort during wear
superior to that of any other contact
lenses currently avallable for pur-
chase; )
(o) Or which is misleading in any
other material respect. [Rule 3]
8192.4 Bait advertising.
It is an unfair trade practice for an
industry member to offer for sale any
industry product when the offer is not
a bona fide effort to seli the product
so offered as advertised and at the ad-
vertised price.
Nore: In determining whether there has
been a vioiation of this section, consider-
ation will be given to acts or practices indi-
cating that the offer was not made in good
faith for the purpose of selling the adver-
tised product, but was made for the purpose
of contacting prospective purchasers and
selling them a product or products other
than the product offered. Among acts or
practices which will be considerod in making
that determination are the following:
(a) The creation, through the initial offer
or advertisement, of a false impression of
the grade, quality, make, value, currency of
model, size, usability, or origin of the prod-
uct offered;
(b) The refusal to show, demonstrate, or
sell the product offered in accordance with
the terms of the offer;
(c) The disparagement, by acts or words,
of the product offered, or the disparage-
ment of the guarantee, credit terms, avail-
ability of service, repairs or parts, or in any
other respect, in connection with it;
(d) The showing, demonstrating, and in
the event of sale, the delivery, of a product
which is unusable or impractical for the
purpose represented or implied in the offer;
(e) The refusal, in the event of sale of the
product offered, to dellver such product to
the buyer within a reasonabie time there-
after;
(f) The failure to have available a quanti-
ty of the advertised product at the adver-
tised price sufficient to meet reasonabiy an-
ticipated demands.
It is not necessary that each act or prac-
tice set forth above be present in order to
Chopter |—Federal Trade Commission
establish that a particular offer is violative
of this section.
(Rule 4]
$192.5 Guarantees, warranties, etc.
(a) It is an unfair trade practice to
represent in advertising or otherwise
that a product is “guaranteed” with-
out clear and conspicuous disclosure
of:
(1) The nature and extent of the
guarantee, and
(2) Any material conditions or limi-
tations in the guarantee which are im-
posed by the guarantor, and
(3) The manner in which the guar-
antor will perform thereunder, and
(4) The identity of the guarantor.
(b) Guarantees shall not be used
which under normal conditions are im-
practical of fulfillment or which are
for such a period of time or are other-
wise of such nature as to have the ca-
Pacity and tendency of misleading pur-
chasers or prospective purchasers into
the belief that the product so guaran-
teed has a greater degree of service-
ability, durability or performance ca-
pability in actual use than is true in
‘act.
(ec) This section has application not
only to “guarantees” but also to “war-
ranties,” to purported “guarantees’’
and “warranties,” and to any promise
or representation in the nature of a
“guarantee” or “warranty.” [Rule 5]
$192.6 Deceptive pricing.
It is an unfair t:ade practice for any
member of the industry to represent
directly or indirectly in advertising or
otherwise that an industry product
may be purchased for a specified price,
or at a saving, or at a reduced price,
when such is not the fact; or otherwise
to deceive purchasers or prospective
purchasers with respect to the price of
any product offered for sale; or to fur-
nish any means or instumentality by
which others engaged in the cale of in-
dustry products may make any such
representation. Among the types of
Practices to be regarded as prohibited
by this section are:
(a) Representing or implying in ad-
vertising or otherwise that a specified
price for prescription eyeglasses or
contact lenses includes the cost to the
buyer of necessary eye examination
63
§ 192.7
and test by an ophthalmologist or op-
tometrist for the purpose of determin-
ing the buyer’s visual defects and pre-
scribing suitable lenses for the relief
or correction thereof, when such is not
the case;
(b) Representing or implying in ad-
vertising or otherwise that complete
eyeglasses are purchaseable for a
specified price when an additional
price is charged for a component part
of the complete eyeglasses (such as
the frames thereof);
(c) Representing or implying in ad-
vertising that a specified price is appli-
cable to all types and kinds of eye-
glasses or contact lenses when a
higher price is charged for certain
kinds or types (e.g., when the stated
price has applicability to eyeglasses
with single vision lenses and a higher
price is charged for eyeglasses with bi-
focal lenses);
(d) Representing or implying in ad-
vertising that contact lenses may be
purchased at a specified price when an
additional and undisclosed charge is
made for processing and fitting ser-
vices that are necessary and made evi-
dent after first use by the buyer and
during the period required for his ad-
justment to the use of such lenses;
(Ce) Representing or implying in ad-
vertising that products may be pur-
chased on credit for the same price
that is applicable to cash sales; that no
down payment is required in the case
of credit sales; that no finance charge
or interest is required when products
are sold on credit or an installment
payment plan; or that a finance or in-
terest charge in the case of sales on
credit will not exceed a_ specified
amount or rate; when such are not the
facts.
Nore: On December 20, 1963, the Commis-
sion adopted Guides Against Deceptive Pric-
ing which became effective January 8, 1964.
Copies thereof will be furnished upon re-
qu
(Rule 6}
(31 FR 10667, Aug. 11, 1966]
$192.7 Prohibited payments by dispensers
to doctors: prohibited tying of refrac-
tions with dispensing, etc.
(a) As used in this section, the word
“doctor”? makes reference to any oph-
§ 192.7
thalmologist, oculist, physician, or op-
tometrist, who makes ophthalmic re-
fractions for a patient and prescribes
eyeglasses or contact lenses for the
correction or improvement of the
vision of such patient, and the word
“dispenser” makes reference to any
party who supplies eyeglasses or con-
tact lenses, so prescribed, to any such
patient. The terms are to be under-
stood as embracing any agent, repre-
sentative, or employee of the doctor or
dispenser, and any employer, princi-
pal, or associate, corporate or other-
wise, for which either acts or purports
to act.
(b) It is an unfair trade practice for
any dispenser to make or give directly
or indirectly, to any doctor (whether
such dispenser acts or purports to act
as an agent of the doctor or other-
wise), any payment arising out of or
connected with his (the dispenser’s)
sale or dispensing of eyeglasses or con-
tact Ienses to a patient of such doctor,
whether such payment be in the form
of, or is described or regarded as, a
rebate, credit, credit balance, gift, divi-
dend, participation in or share in prof-
its, or otherwise; or for a dispenser to
enter into or participate in any agree-
ment, understanding, scheme, plan, or
concert of action, with any doctor, or
with any other party or parties, which
provides for, or facilitates, any such
payments.
Nore 1: It is to be understood that para-
graph (b) of this section does not have ap-
plication to the dispensing of eyeglasses or
contact lenses by a doctor (either himself or
through a bona fide employee) in his own
professional offices. Such dispensing is,
however, to be considered as amoug the
practices which are subject to the prohibi-
tions of paragraph (c) of this section.
Nore 2: In 1951, in actions instituted by
the Department of Justice, decrees were en-
tered in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Iinois, Eastern Di-
vision, which have application to oculists
and ophthalmoiogists as a class, as well as
other defendants, including ophthalmic dis-
pensers. These decrees perpetually enjoin
such doctors:
“(a) From accepting, directly or indirectly,
or designating any person to thus accept,
from any dispenser (whether such dispenser
acts or purports to act as an agent of the
doctor, or otherwise), any payment arising
out of or connected with dispensing to any
patient of such defendant doctor, whether
_ Title 16—Commercial Practices
such payment is in the form of, or is de-
scribed or regarded as, a rebate, credit,
credit balance, gift, dividend, participation
in or share in profits, or otherwise;
(b) Entering into or participating in any
plan, arrangement, or scheme whereby said
defendant doctor receives from any dispens-
er (whether such dispenser acts or purports
to act as agent of the doctor, or otherwise)
directly or indirectly in any form (inciuding
any of the forms and methods referred to
above) any payment arising out of or con-
nected with dispensing to any patient of
such defendant doctor.”
with explanation that the term “dispenser,”
as so used, does not have application “to a
refractionist who engages in dispensing in
his own professional offices (either himself
or through a bona fide empioyee) to his own
patients only.” These decrees remain in
force and effect, and nothing in this section,
or any of the other sections, is to be con-
strued as relieving any industry member or
other party subject to such decrees from
complying with the requirements and provi-
sions thereof. In the interest of clarifying
certain of the requirements of these decrees
the Department has issued opinions in the
form of three letters bearing dates of May
28, 1951, September 10, 1951, and September
24, 1951, which are set forth in an appendix
to this part.
(c) It is an unfair trade practice to
tie in or condition eye refraction ser-
vice for a patient with the dispensing
of the prescribed eyeglasses or contact
lenses to the patient, when such prac-
tice effects, or has a reasonable prob-
ability of effecting, substantial injury
to competition, or creates or tends to
create a monopoly, at any competitive
level in the trade area or areas where
the practice is employed.
Note: To be considered as subject to the
prohibitions of paragraph (c) of this section,
when effecting, or having a reasonable prob-
ability of effecting, substantial injury to
competition at any competitive ievel in the
trade area or areas where the practice is em-
ployed, are tyings of dispensing with refrac-
tions which are accomplished by:
(1) Refusal of the doctor to perform re-
fractions, or to supply prescriptions based
thereon, when and because the patient de-
sires to have the dispensing of the product
done by another party lawfully qualified to
dispense same.
(2) The doctor requiring a higher fee for
his refraction service when he does not dis-
pense the products he prescribes than when
he does dispense such products.
(3) The doctor falsely disparaging the
competency or workmanship of others com-
64
Chapter |—Federal Trade Commissien
peting with him in the dispensing of the
products.
See also § 192.15 of this part, entitled
“False Disparagement of Competitors
or Their Products,” §192.16 of this
part, entitled “‘Coercing Purchase of
One Product as a Prerequisite to the
Purchase of Another or Other Prod-
ucts,” §192.20 of this part, entitled
“Prohibited Forms of Trade Re-
straints (Unlawful Price Fixing, Etc.)’’
and § 192.21 of this part, entitled “Ex-
clusive Dealing,”’ which are applicable
to all industry members. [Rule 7]
$192.8 Prohibited discrimination.
(a) Prohibited discriminatory prices,
rebates, refunds, discounts, credits,
ete., which effect unlawful price dis-
crimination: It is an unfair trade prac-
tice for any member of the industry
engaged in commerce, in the course of
such commeree, to grant or allow se-
cretly or openly, directly or indirectly,
any rebate, refund, discount, credit, or
other form of price differential, where
such rebate, refund, discount, credit,
or other form of price differential, ef-
fects a discrimination in price between
different purchasers of goods of like
grade and quality, where either or any
of the purchases involved therein are
in commerce, and where the effect
thereof may be substantially to lessen
competition or tend to create a mo-
nopoly in any line of commerce, or to
injure, destroy or prevent competition
with any person who either grants or
knowingly receives the benefit of such
discrimination, or with customers of
either of them: Provided however:
(1) That the goods involved in any
such transaction are sold for use, con-
sumption, or resale within any place
under the jurisdiction of the United
States, and are not purchased by
schools, coilegos, universities, public li-
braries, churches, hospitals, and chari-
table institutions not operated for
profit, as supplies for their own use;
(2) That nothing contained in this
paragraph shall prevent differentials
which make only due allowance for
differences in the cost of manufacture,
sale, or delivery resulting from the dif-
fering methods or quantities in which
such commodities are to such purchas-
ers sold or delivered;
§ 192.8
Note 1: Cost justification to be based on
net savings in cost of manufacture, sale or
delivery. Cost justification under the above
proviso depends upon net savings in cost
based on all facts relevant to the transac-
tions under the terms of paragraph (a)(2) of
this section. For example, if a seller regular-
ly grants a discount based upon the pur-
chase of a specified quantity by a single
order for a single dellvery, and this discount
is justified by cost differences, it does not
follow that the same discount can be cost
justified if granted to a purchaser of the
same quantity by multiple orders or for
multiple dellveries,
NoTE 2: Credit or refund for returned
goods. In determining whether a price dif-
ferential based on cost savings under the
above proviso is warranted there shall be
taken into account any portion of the goods
involved which are returned by the custom-
er-purchaser to the seller for credit or
refund. See also Note under paragraph (e)
of this section.
(3) That nothing contained in this
section shall prevent persons engaged
in selling goods, wares, or merchandise
in commerce from selecting their own
customers in bona fide transactions
and not in restraint of trade;
(4) That nothing contained in this
paragraph shall prevent price changes
from time to time where made in re-
sponse to changing conditions affect-
ing the market for or the marketabil-
ity of the goods concerned, such as but
not limited to obsolescence of seasonal
goods, distress sales under court pro-
cess, or sales in good falth in discon-
tinuance of business in the goods con-
cerned;
(5) That nothing contained in this
section shall prevent the meeting in
good falth of an equally low price of a
competitor.
Note 1: In complaint proceedings, justifi-
cation of price differentials under para-
graphs (a) (2), (4) and (5) of this section is a
matter of affirmative defense to be estab-
lished by the person or concern charged
with price discrimination.
Note 2: Subsection (b) of section 2 of the
Clayton Act, as amended, reads as follows:
“Upon proof being made, at any hearing on
& complaint under this section, that there
has been discrimination in price or services
or facilities furnished, the burden of rebut-
ting the prima facie case thus made by
showing justification shall be upon the
person charged with a violation of this sec-
tion, and unless justification shall be affir-
matively shown, the Commission is autho-
rized to issue an order terminating the dis-
65
§ 192.8
crimination: Provided, however, That noth-
ing herein contained shall prevent a seller
rebutting the prima facie case thus made by
showing that his lower price or the furnish-
ing of services or facilities to any purchaser
or purchasers was made in good faith to
meet an equally low price of a competitor,
or the services or facilities furnished by a
competitor.”
(b) The following are examples of
some of the price differential practices
which are to be considered as subject
to the prohibitions of paragraph (a) of
this section when:
(1) The commerce requirements
specified in paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion are present; and
(2) The goods involved are of like
grade and quality and are sold for use,
consumption, or resale within any
place under the jurisdiction of the
United States, and are not purchased
by schools, colleges, universities,
public libraries, churches, hospitals,
and charitable institutions not operat-
ed for profit, as supplies for their own
use; and
(3) The price differential has a rea-
sonable probability of substantialiy
lessening competition or tending to
create a monopoly in any line of com-
merce, or of injuring, destroying, or
preventing competition with the in-
dustry member or with the customer
knowingly receiving the benefit of the
price differential, or with customers of
either of them; and
(4) The price differential is not justi-
fied by cost savings (see paragraph
(a)(2) of this section); and
(5) The price differential is not made
in response to changing conditions af-
fecting the market for or the market-
ability of the goods concerned (see
paragraph (a)(4) of this section); and
(6) The lower price was not made to
meet in good falth an equally low
price of a competitor (see paragraph
(a)(5) of this section).
EXAMPLE 1: Payment terms of 2/10th
prox. are granted by an industry member to
some customers on goods purchased by
them from the industry member. Another
customer or customers are, nevertheless, ai-
lowed to take a 5% instead of a 2% discount
when making payment to the industry
member within the time prescribed.
EXAMPLE 2: An industry member sells
goods to one or more of his customers at a
lower price than he charges other customers
Titie 16—Commerciai Practices
therefor, basing his justification for the
price difference solely on the fact that the
goods sold at the lower price bear the pri-
vate brand name of customers.
ExamMpite 3: An industry member sells
goods to one or more of his customers at a
higher price than he charges other custom-
ers for like merehandise. It is immaterial
whether the goods sold at the lower price
are classified by the industry member as
“seconds,” “secondary line,” “rejects,” or
are otherwise represented by the industry
member as inferior, if in fact of like grade
and quality as the goods sold at the higher
price.
EXaMPLE 4: An industry member sells, to a
customer, which operates as beth a whole-
saler und a retailer, industry products which
the customer resells in its capacity as a re-
tailer, and the industry member charges
such customer a lower price therefor than
such industry member charges other retail-
ers for like products.
(c) Prohibited brokerage and com-
mission: It is an unfair trade practice
for any member of the industry en-
gaged in commerce, in the course of
such commerce, to pay or grant, or to
receive or accept, anything of value as
a commission, brokerage, or other
compensation, or any aliowance or dis-
count in lieu thereof, except for ser-
vices rendered in connection with the
sale or purchase of goods, wares, or
merchandise, either to the other party
to such transaction or to an agent,
representative, or other intermediary
therein where such intermediary ls
acting in fact for or in behalf, or is
subject to the direct or indirect con-
trol, of any party to such transaction
other than the person by whom such
compensation ls so granted or paid.
(d) Prohibited advertising or promo-
tional aliowances, etc.: It is an unfair
trade practice for any member of the
industry engaged in commerce to pay
or contract for the payment of adver-
tising or promotional aliowances or
any other thing of value to or for the
benefit of a customer of such member
in the course of such commerce as
compensation or in consideration for
any service or facilities furnished by
or through such customer in connec-
tion with the processing, handling,
sale, or offering for sale of any prod-
ucts or commodities manufactured,
sold, or offered for sale by such
member, uniess such payment or con-
sideration ls made known to and is
66
Chapter I—Federal Trade Commissien
available on proportionally equal
terms to ail other customers compet-
ing in the distribution of such prod-
ucts or commodities.
Nore 1: Industry members giving
allowances for advertising or sales promo-
tion must, in addition to according same to
all competing customers on proportionally
equal terms, exercise precaution and dili-
gence in secing that all such allowances are
used by the customers for such purpose.
Customers receiving such allowances must
not use same for any other purpose.
When an allowance is made ostensibly for
advertising or sales promotion of products
and is not in fact used for that purpose the
practice may constitute a price discrimina-
tion. In such case, the party giving the
allowance may violate paragraph (a) of this
section and the party receiving same may
violate paragraph (f) of this section.
Note 2: When an industry member gives
allowances to competing customers for ad-
vertising in a newspaper or periodical, the
fact that a lower advertising rate for equiv-
alent space is available to one or more, but
not all, such customers, is not to be regard-
ed by the industry member as warranting
the retention by such customer or custom-
ers of any portion of the allowance for his
or their personal use or benefit.
(e) Prohibited discriminatory ser-
vices of facilities: It is an unfair trade
practice for any member of the indus-
try engaged in commerce to discrimi-
nate in favor of one purehaser against
another purchaser or purchasers of a
commodity bought for resale, with or
without processing, by contracting to
furnish or furnishing or by contribut-
ing to the furnishing of, any services
or facilities connected with the pro-
cessing, handling, sale, or offering for
sale of such commodity so purchased
upon terms not made known to and ac-
corded to ail competing purchasers on
proportionally equal terms.
Nore No. 1: Subsection (b) of section 2 of
the Clayton Act, as amended, which is set
forth in the note concluding paragraph (a)
of this section is applicable to paragraph (e)
of this section.
Nore No. 2: Among the practices prohibit-
ed by paragraph (e) of this section is that of
an industry member according to one or
more customers the privilege of returning
for credit or refund any or all of the goods
purchased by them and failing to accord the
same privilege to another or other compet-
ing customers on proportionally equal
terms. In this connection see also Note No. 2
§ 192.9
under cost justification proviso (paragraph
(a2) of this section).
(f) Inducing or receiving an illegal
discrimination in price, advertising or
promotional ailowances, or services or
facilities: It is an unfair trade practice
for any member of the industry en-
gaged in commerce, in the course of
such commerce, knowingiy to induce
or receive a discrimination in price, ad-
vertising or promotional ailowances, or
services or facillties, prohibited by the
foregoing provisions of this section.
{Rule 8) ©
§ 192.9 Deception as to origin or place of
manufacture.
(a) In the sale, offering for sale, or
distribution of industry products, it is
an unfair trade practice:
(1) To misrepresent the origin or
place of manufacture of an industry
product or any part thereof; or
(2) Subject to the exemptions her-
einafter specified, to fail to adequately
disclose that an industry product, or
any substantial part thereof, is of for-
eign origin, or has been manufactured,
processed, or assembled in a foreign
country, when the failure to make
such disclosure has the capacity and
tendency or effect of deceiving pur-
chasers or prospective purchasers.
(b) The disclosure required by para-
graph (a)(2) of this section shall be in
the form of a legible marking or
stamping on the industry product, or
on a label or tag which is affixed
thereto with such degree of permanen-
cy as to remain on or attached to the
product, in legible form, until consum-
mation of the consumer sale thereof,
and shall bo of such conspicuousness
as to be likely observed by purchasers
and prospective purchasers making
casual inspection of the product. The
disclosure shall name the foreign
country of origin or manufacture, and
when not applicable to the entire
product, shall specify the part or parts
to which it has applicability. If such
disclosure on the product is concealed
or obscured by reason of packaging or
manner in which it is mounted in a
container or on a display card, and is
displayed and offered for consumer
sale in such form, then the disclosure
shall also appear on such packaging,
container, or display card with such
67
§ 192.10
conspicuousness as to be likely ob-
served by consumer purchasers and
prospective consumer purchasers
before consummation of their pur-
chase of the product.
Exemptions: To be regarded as exempt
from the disclosure requirements of para-
graph (a)(2) of this section are:
Sheet, wire, tubing, and similar basic ma-
terial, whether of plastic, metal, or other
substance, when imported in that form: and
Rivets, springs, screws, bolts, brads, wash-
ers and similar small parts of eyeglass
frames, when imported in an unassembled
state and thereafter used in the manufac-
ture of eyeglass frames;
Small and basically decorative and non-
functional imported parts; and
Imported parts, which because of substan-
tial domestic processing or merger with
other parts after importation, no longer
retain the appearance and essential charac-
teristics possessed by them at the time of
their importation.
Norte: In this connection it is to be under-
stood that the installation of lenses into
frames in this country, though involving
cutting, edging, and beveling of the ienses,
and boving of holes in the frames or edges
of the ienses, does not exempt from the re-
quirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this sec-
tion when either the lenses or frames so as-
sembled, or both such parts, have been im-
ported from a foreign country.
Note: Nothing in this section is to be con-
strued as relieving any industry member
from compliance with the requirements of
custom laws of the U.S. having application
to industry products and parts imported
from a foreign country.
(Rule 9]
§ 192.10 Misrepresenting products as con-
forming to a standard.
In the sale, offering for sale or dis-
tribution of industry products, it is an
unfair trade practice to represent, di-
rectly or indirectly, that any such
product, or any part thereof, has been
designed or constructed so as to con-
form to a standard when:
(a) No disclosure is made of the iden-
tity of the standard (whether private,
official, or otherwise); or
(b) The standard to which reference
is made has becn rescinded, amended,
or superseded, and no disclosure is
made of such fact; or
(c) The product or part does not
fully conform to the requirements of
the standard. [Rule 10]
Title 16—Commerclal Practices
§ 192.11 Misrepresentation as to character
of business.
It is an unfair trade practice for any
industry member, in connection with
his sale, offering for sale, or distribu-
tion of industry products, to misrepre-
sent the character, extent, or type of
his business. [Rule 11]
§ 192.12 False invoicing.
(a) It is an unfair trade practice to
withhold from or insert in invoices any
statements or information by reason
of which omission or insertion a false
record is made, wholly or in part, of
the transactions represented on the
face of such invoices, with the capac-
ity and tendency or effect of thereby
misleading or deceiving purchasers,
prospective purchasers, or the buying
public in any matorial respect.
(b) In order to prevent misunder-
standing, confusion, or deception, the
invoice or billing should disclose that
the products of the industry covered
thereby are seconds, defective, or
other than first-quality merchandise,
when such is the fact. [Rule 12]
§ 192.13 Consignment distribution.
(a) It is an unfair trade practice for
any member of the industry to employ
the practice of shipping industry prod-
ucts on consignment without the ex-
press request or prior consent of the
purchasers.
(b) Nothing in this section shali be
construed as authorizing any under-
standing or agreement, combination or
conspiracy, or planned common course
of action, by and between industry
members, mutually to conform or re-
strict their practice of shipping goods
on consignment. [Rule 13]
§ 192.14 Commercial bribery.
It is an unfair trade practice for a
member of the industry, directly or in-
directly, to give, or offer to give, or
permit or cause to be given, money or
anything of value to agents, employ-
ees, or representatives of customers or
prospective customers, or to agents,
employees, or representatives of com-
petitors’ customers or prospective cus-
tomers, without the knowledge of
68
_ Chapter |—Federal Trade Commissien
their employers or principals, as an in-
ducement to influence their employers
or principals to purchase or contract
to purchase products sold or offered
for sale by such industry member, or
to influence such employers or princi-
pals to refrain from dealing in the
products of competitors or from deal-
ing or contracting to deal with com-
petitors. [Rule 14]
$192.15 False disparagement of competi-
tors or their products.
It is an unfair trade practice for any
industry member to represent or imply
that a competitor is incompetent or
not qualified to make, process, or fit
industry products, or certain kinds or
types of industry products, or that a
competitor’s products are inferior to
those of the industry member, when
such is not the case; or in any other
manner to falsely disparage a competi-
tor or his products. [Rule 15]
§ 192.16 Coercing purchase of one product
as a prerequisite to purchase of an-
other or other products.
The practice of coercing the pur-
chase of one or more products as a
prerequisite to the purchase of one or
morc other products, where the effect
may be to substantially lessen compe-
tition or tend to create a monopoly or
to unreasonably restrain trade, is an
unfair trade practice. [Rule 16]
§ 192.17 Inducing breach of contract.
(a) Knowingly inducing or attempt-
ing to induce the breach of existing
lawful contracts between competitors
and their customers or between com-
petitors and their suppliers, or inter-
fering with or obstructing the perfor-
mance of any such contractual duties
or services, under any circumstance
having the capacity and tendency or
effect of substantially injuring or less-
ening competition, is an unfair trade
practice.
(b) Nothing in this section is intend-
ed to imply that it is improper to solic-
it the business of a customer of a com-
peting industry member; nor is the
section to be construed as in anywise
authorizing any agreement, under-
§ 192.20
standing, or planned common course
of action by two or more industry
members not to solicit business from,
or to sell to, the customers of either of
them, or customers of any other indus-
try member. {Rule 17]
§ 192.18 Enticing away employees of com-
petitors.
It is an unfair trade practice for any
member of the industry willfully to
entice away employees or sales-con-
tract personnel of competitors with
the intent and effect of thereby
unduly hampering or injuring com-
petitors in their business and destroy-
ing or substantially lessening competi-
tion: Provided: That nothing in this
section shall be construed as prohibit-
ing employees from seeking more fa-
vorable employment, or as prohibiting
employers from hiring or offering em-
ployment to employees of a competi-
tor in good falth and not for the pur-
pose of inflicting injury on such com-
petitor. [Rule 18]
§ 192.19 Deceptive use or imitation or slm-
ulatiou of trade or corporate names,
trade-marks, ete.
It is an unfair trade practice for any
member of the industry:
(a) To imitate or simulate the trade-
marks, trade names, brands, or labels
of cempetitors, with the capacity and
tendency or effect of misleading or de-
ceiving purchasers or prospective pur-
chasers; or
(b) To represent by use of any trade
name, corporate name, trade-mark, or
other trade designation that any in-
dustry member is a manufacturer,
wholesaler or importer when such is
not the fact; or
(c) To use any trade name, corporate
name, trade-mark, or other trade des-
ignation, which has the capacity and
tendency or effect of misleading or de-
ceiving purchasers or prospective pur-
chasers as to the name, nature, or
origin of any product of the industry,
or of any material used therein, or
which is false, deceptive, or misleading
in any other material respect. (Rule
19]
69
§ 192.21
§ 192.20 Prohibited forms of trade re-
straints (unlawful price fixing, etc.) ?
It is an unfair trade practice for any
member of the industry, either direct-
ly or indirectly, to engage in any
planned common course of action, or
to enter into or take part in any un-
derstanding, agreement, combination,
or conspiracy, with one or more mem-
bers of the industry, or with any other
person or persons, to fix or maintain
the price of any goods or otherwise
unlawfully to restrain trade; or to use
any form of threat, intimidation, or
coercion to induce any member of the
industry or other person or persons to
engage in any such planned common
course of action, or to become a party
to any such understanding, agreement,
combination, or conspiracy. [Rule 20]
§ 192.21 Exclusive dealing.
It is an unfair trade practice for any
member of the industry to contract to
sell or sell any industry product, or fix
a price charged therefor, or discount
from, or rebate upon, such price, on
the condition, agreement, or under-
standing that the purchaser thereof
shall not use or deal in the products of
a competitor or competitors of such in-
dustry member, where the effect of
such sale or contract for sale, or of
such condition, agreement, or under-
standing, may be substantially to
lessen competition or tend to create a
?The prohibitions of this section are sub-
ject to Pub. L. 542, approved July 14, 1952-
86, Stat. 632 (the McGuire Act, commonly
referred to as the Fair Trade Amendment)
which provides that with respect to a com-
modity which bears, or the label or contain-
er of which bears, the trade-mark, brand, or
name of the producer or distributor of such
commodity and which is in free and open
competition with commodities of the same
general class produced or distributed by
others, a seiler of such a commodity may
enter into a contract or agreement with a
buyer thereof which establishes a minimum
or stipulated price at which such commodity
may be resoid by such buyer when such con-
tract or agreement is lawful as applied to in-
trastate transactions under the laws of the
State, Territory, or territorial jurisdiction in
which the resale is to be made or to which
the commodity is to be transported for such
resale, and when such contract or agree-
ment is not between manufacturers, or be-
tween wholesalers, or between brokers, or
between factors, or between retailers, or be-
twecn persons, firms, or corporations in
competition with each other.
70
Title 16—Commercial Practices
monopoly in any line of commerce.
[Rule 21]
APPENDIX
Set forth below are copies of the letters of
the Department of Justice which are re-
ferred to in “Note 2” of § 192.7 of this part
of the foregoing trade practice rules for the
Optical Products Industry.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Suite 820, 208 Seuth La Salle Street
Chicago 4, Illinois
May 28, 1951.
Re: [Title of case]
Dear Docror: I am enclosing a copy of the
final judgment which has been approved by
the Court and entered in this case. Certain
provisions of this judgment are binding
upon you as a defendant class doctor and
therefore this letter, which has been ap-
proved by the Court, is being written to you,
in order that you may understand why the
judgment is binding upon you, as well as the
purpose and effect of the judgment, as it af-
fects you.
Final judgments containing identical pro-
visions forbidding doctors from sharing
profits connected with the sale of glasses
have been approved and entered in all six of
the “Optical Rebating” cases which were
brought by the Government. These cases
are United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical
Company et al., United States v. American
Optical Company et al., United States v.
House of Vision-Belgard-Spero, Inc., et al.,
United States v. Uhlemann Optical Compa-
ny et al. (all flled in Chicago), United States
v. N. P. Benson Optical Company et al.
(filed in Minneapolis, Minnesota), and
United States v. The White-Haines Optical
Company et al. (Filed in Columbus, Ohio).
These six final judgments directly bind you,
and the approximately 4,000 other doctors
who were sued in those cases. Those judg-
ments were entered with the consont of the
parties who had signed them (and for that
reason frequentiy are called “consent de-
crees”), ‘ut they have the same binding
effect as a judgment entered by the Court
after trial.
When the complaints in this case and the
related cases were first filed, the Govern-
ment anticipated trying them in court. A
“date was set by the Court for the trial of
the first of these cases and the Government
made extensive preparations for trial in all
six cases. Counsel representing the defen-
dants in the various cases then opened nego-
tiations with the Government with a view to
disposing of the cases by consent instead of
undergoing what undoubtediy wouid be
lengthy trials. The final judgment which
you now have is the result of negotiations
which extended over a period of more than
two years.
Chapter I—Federal Trade Commissien
As you know, this case and the five other
Optical Rebating cases are ‘‘class actions.”
Only a selected number of doctors (in no
one case more than 30) were named in each
of the complaints that were filed in the
cases, but those were chosen as being repre-
sentative of a much larger “class” of doc-
tors. This is the authorized procedure where
a@ number of persons sued in a case is large.
Clearly it would have been impractical to
name as individual defendants the approxi-
mately 4,000 doctors who we knew had re-
ceived rebates and to require each one of
them to appear in court to file answers and
otherwise defend themselves in the suits.
All of the doctors in this case who were
sued individually and as representatives of
the “class doctors” have consented to the
entry of this final judgment. Of the 75 doc-
tors who were sued as representatives of the
class doctors in the six cases, all have agreed
to the entry of similar judgments. In each
of the six cases a considerable number of
“class doctors,” i.e., those not named as indi-
vidual defendants in the complaint, volun-
tarily filed statements submitting to the ju-
risdiction of the court and agreeing to be
bound by whatever judgment might be en-
tered. The remaining ‘class doctors” were
served with “show cause orders’ which in-
formed the doctor as to his status in this
case. These “show cause orders” also gave
him the right, lf he objected to being repre-
sented by the doctors named as represcnta-
tive defendants in the complaint or to being
bound by a final judgment entered in the
case, to answer the complaint and defend
himself as an individual defendant. It is
noteworthy that not a single doctor of the
4,000 involved in the six cases avalled him-
self of the “day in court” afforded by the
show cause order.
Over two years after the show cause
orders were issued, one doctor (who shortly
thereafter died and whose position was as-
sumed by two doctors) filed a motion attack-
ing the theory and operation of the class
action in this case and seeking to have this
case as to all “class doctors.” The
Court denied the motion and upheld the
class suit as being a valid and proper one. A
copy of the Court’s memorandum opinion
on that question is sent you herewith. Con-
sidering all the foregoing, it is the Govern-
ment’s opinion that the final judgment in
this case is as binding on you as if you had
been personally present in court as an indi-
vidual defendant and had in that capacity
given your assent to its entry against you.
Your attention is called particularly to
paragraph III of this final judgment and to
the relevant definitlons contained in para-
graph II. These are the provisions which
will probably be of greatest interest to you
and the other doctors. Paragraph III is the
order of the Court enjoining the individual
and class defendant doctors from accepting,
30-035 O - 78-6
71
Appendix
directly or indirectly, from any dispenser
any payment, however described, arising out
of or connected with dispensing to any
person and further enjoining any entry into
or participation in any plan, arrangement,
or scheme under which any defendant
doctor receives any such payment from any
dispenser.
The final judgment does not prevent you
from following the normal professional
practice and procedure of prescribing lenses
for your patients and giving the prescription
to the patient, who then takes the prescrip-
tion to an optical supply company (dispens-
ing optician) to be filled. The optical supply
company then fulfills the purely business
function of filling the prescription, selling
the glasses to the patient, and making the
necessary fitting of the glasses to the pa-
tient’s face. Doctors continue to be free to
follow this procedure. They are, of course,
subject to those provisions in the final judg-
ment which prohibit the rebating practice
in all its forms.
In our opinion, the provisions of this final
judgment would not prevent any individual
doctor from doing his own dispensing in his
own professional offices (either himself or
through a bona fide full time employee) to
his own patients only. The same holds true
as to doctors who operate through a part-
nership for purely professional purposes, or
in a clinic, or through other similar arrange-
ments involving the occupancy by the doc-
tors in the group of common, or contiguous
and inter-connected professional office
space, and the sharing of such common fa-
cilities as the receptlon room, telephone op-
erator, receptionist, stenographic help, and
the like. Such “group practice’ doctors
could likewise share in the common utiliza-
tion of the services of a bona fide employce
of such doctors who does dispensing to the
patients of such doctors only, in the profes-
sional offices of such doctors.
It is clear to us, however, that the individ-
ual doctors or “group practice” doctors as
described above, who do their own dispens-
ing or use a bona fide employce to do such
dispensing to patients of such doctors only,
could not enter into any agreement or un-
derstanding or concert of action with any
other persons, including other doctors or
other dispensers, with respect to the prices
to be charged for the spectacles and parts
thereof dispensed.
It is also clear to us that all forms of ar-
rangements between doctors (other than
the above arrangements associated with
“group practice”), directed at setting up or
utilizing a dispeuser whose services shall be
shared by more than one doctor and from
whom such doctors derive any payments
arising out of or connected with such dis-
pensing to their patients, whether such pay-
ment be in the form of or regarded as a
Appendix
rebate, credit, credit balance, gift, dividend,
participation in or share in profits or other-
wise, would be prohibited under the decree.
Sincerely yours,
H. G. Morison,
Assistant Attorney General
By Wuuis L. HorcHxiss,
Chief, Midwest Office
Antitrust Division.
(Text OF DEPARTMENT'S SEPTEMBER 24, 1951,
LETTER PERTAINING TO INVESTMENT BY Doc-
TORS IN CORPORATIONS ENGAGED IN D1s-
PENSING)
s s s s s
Your second inquiry concerns the applica-
bility of the Judgments to the investment
by doctors in corporations engaged in dis-
pensing. The situation which you describe
may be summarized as foliows:
Four doctors and a layman form a corpo-
ration which is to engage in optical dispens-
ing. Each of these persons pays $2,000 for
20% of the stock. The doctors direct their
patients to the company without disclosing
their ownership interest therein. Each
doctor and the layman receives dividends
proportionate to the amount of stock held
by each, without regard to the number of
referrals. The doctor-stock-helders ‘“‘have no
connection whatsoever with the prices
It is not our general practice to give our
construction of a consent judgment except
with respect to the facts of specific and
identlfied cases involving parties to the
judgment. However, it is our view that the
“stock investment” plan cutlined in the pre-
ceding paragraph would be in violation of
the Optical Rebating Judgments.
Sincerely yours,
H. G. Morison,
Assistunt Attorney General
(Text OF DEPARTMENT'S SEPTEMBER 10, 1951,
LETTER ON CHARGE AND SEND PLANS)
Since receiving your letter requesting an
opinion on the question whether the final
judgment in this case applies to the type of
“charge and send” plan you describe, we
have had a number of inquiries relating to
variations of the same plan asking whether
such plans are permissible under the final
judgments entered in the optical rebating
cases. These inquiries have provided us with
considerable information on the operation
and effect of the various plans.
The basic “charge and send” plan consists
of the following procedure:
(a) the doctor makes a refracticn for
which he charges the patient a professional
fee, writes a prescription, and sends the pa-
tent to a designated optical bouse to have it
illed;
(b) the optical house makes the necessary
measurements, displays the frames and
72
Title 16—Commercial Practices
mountings from which the patient makes
his seiection, quotes the patient the con-
sumer price for the finished glasses, grinds
the lenses to the prescription and mounts
them;
(c) the patient later returns to the optical
house to have the glasses fitted and adjust-
ed, and the optical house then sends the
glasses to the doctor rather than turning
them over to the patient;
(d) the patient returns to the doctor who
turns the glasses over to the patient and coi-
lects the consumer price for them, remits to
the optical house the wholesale price plus
the fitting fee, and retains for himself the
difference between that amount and the
consumer price.
You have described a variant whereby the
doctor would keep a case of sample frames
in his professional office from which tbe pa-
tient would make his selection, with the
doctor then quoting to the patient tbe con-
sumer price.
It is our opinion that the basic “charge
and send” plan is prohibited under the opti-
cal rebating judgments. The same is true as
to the variations which you describe, and
those variations similar thereto, such as the
“C.O.D. charge and send.” Each of these
procedures constitutes a plan, arrangement,
or scheme whereby the doctor obtains a fi-
nancial return arising out of or connected
with dispensing to his patient, with the
doctor performing no real function in the
dispensing procedure other than coliecting
the consumer price. The procedures accom-
plish by indirection, and by a complex and
artificial procedure, what was done directly
and simply under the oid rebate system.
The procedures therefore come under the
prohibition cf the final judgments in this
and the related optical rebating cases.
Sineerely yours,
H. G. Morison,
Assistant Attorney General
By Wuuis L. Horcux1ss,
Chief, Midwest Office
Antitrust Division.
PART 195—BEDDING MANUFACTUR-
ING AND WHOLESALE DISTRIBUT-
ING INDUSTRY
Sec.
195.0 Definition; bedding preducts.
Group I
195.1 Decepticn as to used materials and
Parts.
195.2 Other deception through misrepre-
sentation or cencealment.
195.3 Misuse of the terms “feit,” “felting,”
and “felted.”
195.4 Misuse of the terms “latex,” “foam
rubber,” “latex foam rubber,”’ etc.