Trade Practice Rules for the Masonry Waterproofing Industry

Promulgation date as printed in the volumes: Aug. 31, 1946. 8 mentions in F.T.C. Decisions volumes 45-69.

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

• v045-0050, 45 F.T.C. 818: ices charged in the complaint as being in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act have been voluntarily discontinued by respondent upor its acceptance of Trade Practice Rules for the Masonry Waterproofing Industry, approved August 31, 1946, and that respondent has now furnished the Commission with proof of its
• v045-0050, 45 F.T.C. 823: d from the use of sai compounds. ; Having duly considered the motion and the record herein, and it appearing to the Commission that respondent has accepted the Trade Practice Rules for the Masonry Waterproofing Industry approved August 31, 1946; that all of the practices alleged in the complaint as being in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act are covered by said Rules or were discontinued by
• v045-0050, 45 F.T.C. 836: tion of the Federal Trade Commission Act have been voluntarily discontinued and that there is adequate reason, to believe that respondent is complying with the Trade Practice Rules for the Masonry Waterproofing Industry promulgated by the Com-
• v049-0098, 49 F.T.C. 1395: of the evidence established that such advertising representation was false and misleading. With respect to respondent’s contention that it participated in the trade practice rules of the Commission for the masonry waterproofing industry promulgated August 31, 1946, and that on or before October 1, 1946, their effective date, it destroyed and had not subsequently issued any of the advertising containing any of the represe
• v049-0098, 49 F.T.C. 1407: ading. Par. 17. In the course of the hearings in this proceeding the respondent Prima Products, Inc., contended that it participated in, and subscribed to,:the Trade Practice Rules of the Federal Trade Commission for the Masonry Waterproofing Industry promulgated August 31, 1946. Respondent further contended that on or before October 1, 1946, the effective date of said Trade Practice Rules, it destroyed and has not subsequently issued
• v069-0075, 69 F.T.C. 880: er waterproof or water repellent" ; and that to draw any further distinction was "splitting hairs" or "nit picking" (Tr. 1057). He said he had "never seen" the Trade Practice Rules for the Masonry Waterproofing Industry (Tr. 796). But neither he nor Peterson ever explained why they had tried to substitute the term "water repellent" for "waterproof. Klehman recognized "certain
• v069-0075, 69 F.T.C. 880: dard for testing the claim (and the only standard relied on by the Government) is that established by the Commission for use of "waterproof" terminology in the Trade Practice Rules for the Masonry Waterproofing Industry (August , 1946). Rule 2 reads as follows:
• v069-0075, 69 F.T.C. 881: ive as a water repellent (Tr. 1144, 1155- , 1164), but that it would not qualify as a waterproofing compound within the definition (Rule 2) in the Commission s Trade Practice Rules for the Masonry Waterproofing Industry (Tr. 1145- , 1148). He volunteered the statement, however, that, in his opinion, the definition was unrealistic and that a product such as X-33 might properly