Trade Practice Rules for the Cosmetics and Toilet Preparations Industry

Promulgation date as printed in the volumes: Sept. 10, 1954. 11 mentions in F.T.C. Decisions volumes 46-72.

OCR of printed text; dates and names may contain errors. Not a complete list of FTC rules.

• v046-0019, 46 F.T.C. 1129: .on an industrywide basis against those practices which may be in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. There are now in preparation and consideration Trade Practice Conference Rules for the Cosmetics and Toilet Preparations Industry. The rules proposed and considered at said conference included a rule covering in general terms the misrepresentation of cosmetics and toilet preparations. Sub
• v049-0111, 49 F.T.C. 1563: O, INC. ET AL. 1563 Dismissed for the reasons, as set forth in the Commission’s order, that subsequent to the reception of evidence, the Commission promulgated Trade Practice Rules for the Cosmetic and Toilet Preparations Industry which evidence an interpretation by it of section 2 (e) under which that section would be violated only if “demonstrator service” was not accorded to all “comp
• v049-0112, 49 F.T.C. 1580: Co., Inc, moved the hearing examiner to dismiss the complaint upon the grounds: (1) that the matters and practices complained of are adequately covered by the Trade Practice Conference Rules for the Cosmetic and Toilet Preparations Industry, and (2) that respondent has subscribed to such rules, is now in compliance therewith, and intends to continue to comply. In its petition to the Commission res
• v049-0112, 49 F.T.C. 1582: ng the complaints the Commission said: “Subsequent to the issuance of the complaint and the conclusion of the reception of evidence, the Commission promulgated trade practice rules for the Cosmetic and Toilet Preparations Industry * * *. * * * The rules * * * specifically provide that one type of service may be offered to some customers and an alternate trpe to others, and further set ou
• v051-0026, 51 F.T.C. 408: ses, the character of the past violations. In the matter of Wildroot Oompany, Inc. (1953) Docket No. 5928 it appeared that the respondent had subscribed to the Trade Practice Conference Rules for the Cosmetic and Toilet Preparations Industry! which Rules adequately covered the practices complained of. Thero was also in the record a declaration under oath of respondent's vice president and general m
• v052-0139, 52 F.T.C. 1089: a full hearing; that it may be altered mudified or set aside in the manner providecl for other orders; and that. the complaint and Rule 1 (VII) of the Amended Trade Practice Rules for the Cosmctic and Toilet Preparations Industry, prcmnlgated September 10 , 1954, (Title 16 C. R 221. (g)) may be nsed in construing the terms of the order. This proceeding having nO\y come on for final cons
• v052-0181, 52 F.T.C. 1646: . A cease and desist order was held proper. In the matter of Wi/droot Company, Inc. (1953), Docket 5928 , it appeared that the respondent had subscribed to the Trade Practice Conference Rules for the Cosmetic and Toilet Preparations Industry, which Rules adequately covered the practices complained of. There was also in the record a declaration under oath of respondenfs vice president and general ma
• v053-0118, 53 F.T.C. 752: t become a part of the official record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission; that the complaint and Rule 1 (VII) of the Amended Trade Practice Rules for the Cosmetic and Toilet Preparations Industry, promulgated September 10, 1954 (Title 16, C.F.R. 221.1(g)), may be used in construing the terms of the order agreed upon, which may be altered, modified or set aside in the manner provided f
• v066-0017, 66 F.T.C. 232: s, Tr. 866). Following an investigation of the promotional and advertising programs of Shulton and all of its major competitors, the Commission promulgated its Trade Practice Conference Rules for the Cosmetic and Toilet Preparations Industry (4 CCH Trade Reg. Rep. § 41,221:
• v071-0073, 71 F.T.C. 912: stablished: ,S'unbewJn Corporation Docket 7409 (Final Order January 11 , 1965) (67 C. 20J; Lever Brothe?'s Co. 50 F. C. 494 (1953); Guides Par. 9 (Example 2) ; Trade Practice Rules for the Cosmetic and Toilet Preparation Industry (1951); see also Vanity Fair' Paper Mills , Inc. v. Pedeml Tmde Commission 311 F. 2d 480, 486 (2d Cir. 1962). But cf. Exquisite FO?'n Brassiere , Inc. 57 F. C.
• v072-0049s1, 72 F.T.C. 1058: lowed by the following qualification- BLENDED WITH FRENCH OILS IN USA. In its opinion, the Commission said that the question posed is governed by Rule 3 (b) of trade practice rules for the Cosmetic and Toilet Preparations Industry. "This rule " the Commission said specifically forbids the use of any foreign word or depiction in the brand name of a toilet preparation which may tend to con