ORDERS OF DISMISSAL DIEL WATCH CASE CO., INC. Complaint, April 28, 1931. Order, January 7, 1932. (Docket 1944.) Charge: Misbranding or mislabeling and advertising falsely or misleadingly as to composition or nature of manufacture of product; in connection with the manufacture and sale of watch cases and the assembling of watches. Dismissed, after answer, by the following order: This matter coming on for further hearing. 1 It is ordered, That the order to cease and desist heretofore entered herein be and the same is hereby rescinded and the complaint dismissed. Appearances: Mr. E. J. Hornibrook for the Commission; Mr. Jacob M. Zinaman, of New York City, for respondent. I. M. BAGEDONOW, INC. Complaint, March 5, 1931. Order, January 12, 1932. (Docket 1923.) Charge: Naming product misleadingly, advertising falsely or misleadingly and misbranding or mislabeling as to source or origin; in connection with the manufacture and sale of ladies' coats. Dismissed, after answer and trial, without assignment of reasons. Appearances: Mr. Robert H. Winn for the Commission; Mr. Jacob M. Zinaman, of New York City, for respondent. THE NITRAGIN Co., Inc. Complaint, July 18, 1930. Order, January 29, 1932. (Docket 1859.) Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly as to value of own and competitive products, and official tests, and misbranding or mislabeling as to value of product; in connection with development and sale of cultures of nitrogen-fixing bacteria for use in promoting growth of leguminous crops. Dismissed, after answer and trial, without assignment of reasons. Appearances: Mr. PGad B. Morehouse for the Commission; McGovern, Curtis & Devos, of Milwaukee, Wisc., for respondent. RADIANT SPECIALTY Co., ET AL.2 Complaint, December 10, 1929. Order, February 15, 1932. (Docket 1728.) Charge: Misrepresenting business status or identity, and nature or results of product, offering deceptive inducements to purchase, secur 1 See 15 F. T. C. 176. 2 In addition to the Radiant Specialty Co., respondents include Hyman, Rose, Benjamin, and Esther Fistel, and Benjamin Snyder, individually and as officers and agents of aforesaid company. 632-33-35 ing prospects signature to contract of sale through trickery, and abusing or using legal process improperly; in connection with the sale of electric lamp fixtures and parts thereof. Dismissed, after answer and trial, without assignment of reasons. Appearances: Mr. Edward E. Reardon for the Commission; Golden & Golden, of New York City, for respondents. COHEN, GOLDMAN & Co., INC. Complaint, February 3, 1930. Order, February 17, 1932. (Docket 1754.) Charge: Maintaining resale prices; in connection with the manufacture and sale of men's clothing. Dismissed, after answer and trial, without assignment of reasons. Appearances: Mr. Robert H. Winn for the Commission; Nordlinger & Riegelman, of New York City, and Mr. Dean Hill Stanley, of Washington, D. C., for respondent. CHASE & SANBORN, INC. Complaint, January 21, 1932. Order, March 10, 1932. (Docket 1998.) Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly as to testimonials and indorsements; in connection with sale of coffee. Dismissed for the reason that respondent has been dissolved. D. T. BOHON Co., INC. Complaint, January 12, 1931. Order, March 16, 1932. (Docket 1893.) Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly as to composition and quality of product and sale direct from factory to consumer; in connection with sale of paint by mail. Dismissed, after answer, on memorandum of chief counsel and without prejudice. Appearances: Mr. E. J. Hornibrook for the Commission. CHARLES ATLAS. Complaint, May 15, 1931. Order, March 22, 1932. (Docket 1952.) Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly as to nature and results of product and service, prices, products as free, and pretended special offers; in connection with sale of a correspondence course of instruction in science and art of physical culture. Dismissed, after answer and trial, without assignment of reasons. Appearances: Mr. Alfred M. Craven for the Commission; Mr. Stephen A. Day and Mr. Eugene L. Culver of Washington, D. C., for respondent. AUTO SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. Complaint, April 6, 1931. Order, March 23, 1932. (Docket 1935.) Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly as to nature and results of product or service; in connection with sale of a course of study and instruction called Practical Mind Science. Dismissed, on the ground that the respondents are out of business. Appearances: Mr. Edward E. Reardon for the Commission. E. B. HALL, TRADING AS E. W. HALL AND DR. E. W. HALL. Complaint, January 16, 1932. Order, March 25, 1932. (Docket 1994.) Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly as to source or nature of manufacture of product, and properties or results thereof; in connection with the sale of a proprietary medicine under the name of "Texas Wonder." Dismissed by the following order: The above case coming on for consideration before the Commission on this 21st day of March, 1932, on a report presented by the special board of investigation tendering for consideration and action by the Commission a certain written stipulation executed by the respondent, E. B. Hall, an individual trading as E. W. Hall and Dr. E. W. Hall, and recommending that such stipulation be by the Commission accepted and approved and that, thereupon, the Commission make an order dismissing the complaint issued against said respondent, and the Commission being fully advised in the premises, It is ordered, That the report of the special board of investigation be, and the same hereby is, approved; that the stipulation so executed by said respondent, E. B. Hall, trading as E. W. Hall and Dr. E. W. Hall, be, and the same hereby is, accepted and approved; that the complaint heretofore issued by the Commission against the said E. B. Hall, trading as E. W. Hall and Dr. E. W. Hall, be, and the same hereby is, dismissed. Appearances: Mr. E. J. Hornibrook for the Commission; Esch, Kerr, Woolley, Newton & Shipe of Washington, D. C., for respondent. ASSOCIATED KNITTING MILLS OUTLET CO., INC. Complaint, April 10, 1930. Order, April 1, 1932. (Docket 1783.) Charge: Using misleading corporate name, misrepresenting business status and advertising falsely or misleadingly in regard thereto; in connection with the sale of hosiery, lingerie, sweaters, blankets, and other articles. Dismissed, after answer, for the reason that "respondent has gone out of business." Appearance: Mr. G. Ed. Rowland for the Commission; Duffy & Duffy, of Bay City, Mich., for respondent. EMILE MEYER AND HENRY C. GOLDMAN, COPARTNERS, TRADING AS EMILE MEYER & Co., AND ALSO TRADING AS HASLIN MILLS; AND D. J. GROSS, AN INDIVIDUAL TRADING AS BELLMORE DRESS CO. Complaint, April 3, 1931. Order, April 20, 1932. (Docket 1934.) Charge: Using misleading trade name, misrepresenting business status, naming product misleadingly, advertising falsely or misleadingly and misbranding or mislabeling as to composition of product; in connection with manufacture and sale of cotton piece goods which they cause to be converted or finished. Dismissed, after answer and trial, without assignment of reasons. Appearances: Mr. Robert H. Winn for the Commission; Mr. Henry Fluegelman, of New York City, for respondents. THOMAS WILLIAMS, THOMAS R. WILLIAMS, THOMAS BLAGDON, D. S. WILLIAMS, AND E. W. WILLIAMS, PARTNERS, TRADING AS ICHABOD T. WILLIAMS & SONS. Complaint, December 20, 1929. Order, May 3, 1932. (Docket 1746.) Charge: Misrepresenting product as to composition and advertising falsely or misleadingly in regard thereto; in connection with sale of lumber and other wood products to lumber dealers and manufacturers of furniture, cabinet work and allied products. Dismissed, after answer, by the following order: The respondents herein having tendered this Commission the following stipulation: Respondents hereby stipulate and agree, that in their sale, description, and advertisements of wood grown in Africa which they have heretofore usually described as "African mahogany ", they will not employ the word "mahogany " alone or in connection with other words without the modifying word or adjective "African ". and the Commission having accepted the same; It is hereby ordered, That the complaint herein be, and the same is hereby, dismissed. Appearances: Mr. Alfred M. Craven for the Commission; Mr. Junius Parker, of New York City, for respondents. I. STEINBERG, TRADING AS PARISIAN MANICURE MANUFACTURING CO. Complaint, April 28, 1931. Order, May 9, 1932. (Docket 1943.) Charge: Misbranding or mislabeling as to nature of product; in connection with the manufacture and sale of manicure sticks. Dismissed, after answer, "for lack of interstate commerce." Appearances: Mr. James M. Brinson for the Commission. FRED F. SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY, AND DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE TRADE NAMES AND STYLES OF "THE NEWTON REMEDY Co.", "THE NEWTON HORSE REMEDY Co.", AND "THE NEWTON HORSE MEDICINE Co." Complaint, May 8, 1931. Order, May 12, 1932. (Docket 1948.) Charge: Misrepresenting nature and results of product in connection with the manufacture and sale of a preparation or product for the care and treatment of horses, cattle, and hogs. Dismissed, after answer, " for the reason that the respondent Fred F. Smith is dead.” Appearances: Mr. Henry C. Lank for the Commission; Mr. Ralph Emery, of Toledo, Ohio, for respondent. GENERAL CIGAR CO., INC. Complaint, November 25, 1930. Order, May 21, 1932. (Docket 1879.) Charge: Selling and distributing products on exclusive and noncompetitive basis; in connection with manufacture and sale of cigars. Dismissed, after answer, stipulation and trial, without assignment of reasons, Commissioner McCulloch dissenting in following memorandum: Dissenting opinion by Commissioner McCulloch The facts of this case were brought into the record by stipulation and are therefore undisputed. Respondent is a manufacturer and distributor of cigars, and its products include several well-established, popular brands. Its gross output has reached as high as 812,977,000 cigars per annum, of the sales value of $37,946,655. It has adopted and maintained the plan of selling to independent wholesalers in restricted territory, who in turn resell to subwholesalers and also to retailers. There are 46 of such distributors, and respondent also operates 17 of its own sales agencies in restricted territory. The distributors, both independents and company branches, are restricted in making sales to assigned territory. Respondent also sells to a list of chain stores. There is no formal contract between respondent and its customers with respect to restricted territory, but respondent sends a letter to a distributor assigning territory when the business begins between them or when changes are to be made in the assignments. The assignments are accepted by the distributors and there is complete cooperation between respondent and each distributor to enforce the plan by preventing a distributor from making resales outside the limits of the assigned territory. The subwholesalers are also included in the plan. Numerous instances are shown in the agreed statement of facts of the cooperative methods of enforcing the plan. The arrangement is described in the agreed statement as being one to provide "that the distributors will cooperate with each other and with respondent to the end that the activities of the distributors in respect to specified brands will be confined to the area or territory assigned to each, that is to say, that none of them will attempt to sell respondent's products outside of the area or territory assigned to each." |