ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA. Complaint, July 21, 1925. Order, April 7, 1930. (Docket 1335.)

Charge: Discriminating in price, in violation of sections 2 and 5 of the Clayton and Federal Trade Commission Acts, respectively, interfering with and cutting off supplies of competitors and sources thereof, selling at and below cost, and harassing competitors, with intent and/or effect of maintaining or gaining a monopoly; in connection with the manufacture and sale of pig aluminum ingots, aluminum ingots, aluminum sheet and other aluminum products. Dismissed, after answer and trial, by the following order:

The above-entitled proceeding coming on for consideration by the Commission upon the complaint of the Commission, the answer of respondent, the record, briefs, and oral argument of counsel for the Commission and for the respondent, and the Commission having duly considered same and being fully advised in the premises,

It is ordered, That the complaint herein be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that the charges of the complaint are not sustained by the testimony and evidence.

Appearances: Mr. Richard P. Whiteley and Mr. E. J. Hornibrook for the Commission; Smith, Buchanan, Scott & Gordon, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for respondent.

McCoy's LABORATORIES, INC. Complaint, October 22, 1929. Order, April 8, 1930. (Docket 1708.)

Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly and misbranding or mislabeling as to results or nature of products; in conrection with the sale of a proprietary medicine.

Dismissed, after stipulation, by the following order:

This matter coming on for consideration by the Commission, and it appearing that the subject matter of the complaint has been disposed of satisfactorily to the Commission by stipulation, whereby the respondent agrees to cease and desist from the practices alleged in the complaint and not to resume the same, and the Commission now being fully advised in the premises,

It is ordered, That the complaint herein be and the same hereby is dismissed.

Appearances: Mr. Everett F. Haycraft for the Commission; Ellis, Ferguson, Houghton & Gary, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

CORDIANO BROTHERS, INC., AND W. P. BERNAGOZZI. Complaint, July 23, 1929. Order, May 3, 1930. (Docket 1687.)

Charge: Selling and sanctioning sale and use of well-known product's distinctive containers and name to and by others for adulterated articles; in connection with the manufacture and sale of cans and importation, packing, and sale of Italian olive oil.

Dismissed, after answer and trial, by the following order:

The above-entitled proceeding coming on for consideration upon the complaint of the Commission, the answer of respondents, testimony and evidence, and the Commission now being fully advised in the premises,

It is ordered, That the complaint herein be and the same is hereby dismissed for the reason that the charges of the complaint were not sustained by the testimony and evidence.

Appearances: Mr. Richard P. Whiteley for the Commission; Mr. Simon Katz and Mr. Sol. L. Youngentob, of New York City, for respondents.

HERMAN L. BALMUTH AND ISADORE BALMUTH, TRADING AS STANDARD FURNITURE FACTORIES. Complaint, October 22, 1929. Order, May 3, 1930. (Docket 1710.)

Charge: Using misleading trade name and advertising falsely or misleadingly as to business status; in connection with the sale and distribution of furniture.

Dismissed, after answer and trial, by the following order:

The above-entitled proceeding coming on for consideration by the Commission, and the Commission now being fully advised in the premises,

It is ordered, That the complaint be and the same is hereby dismissed for the reason that respondent is not engaged in interstate commerce.

Appearances: Mr. Robert H. Winn for the Commission; Mr. Benjamin M. Gottesfeld, of New York City, for respondents.

DIGESTS OF STIPULATIONS PUBLISHED AFTER DELETING

NAME OF RESPONDENTS1

STIPULATION OF THE FACTS AND AGREEMENTS TO CEASE AND DESIST

380. False and Misleading Trade Name and Advertising Hosiery and Underwear.-Respondent, an individual, engaged in the sale and distribution of hosiery and underwear in interstate commerce, and in competition with other individuals, firms, partnerships, and corporations likewise engaged, entered into the following stipulation as to the facts and agreement to cease and desist forever from the alleged unfair methods of competition as set forth therein.

Respondent, in the course and conduct of his business, adopted and used as a part of his trade name the word "Mills" and caused his said trade name containing the word "Mills" to be used in connection with the sale of his products in interstate commerce, in advertisements and on his stationery, including cards, billheads, and envelopes, all of which were distributed and circulated in interstate commerce; when in truth and in fact said respondent did not own, operate, or control a mill or factory wherein were manufactured or fabricated the hosiery and underwear sold and distributed by him in interstate commerce, but filled orders for such products from goods manufactured in mills or factories which he neither owned, operated, nor controlled.

Respondent, in soliciting the sale of and selling his products in interstate commerce, agreed to cease and desist forever from the use of the word "Mills" as part of his trade name, and from the use of the word "Mills" in any other way so as to import or imply that said respondent either owns, operates, or controls a mill or factory in which are manufactured or fabricated the products sold by him in interstate commerce; and from the use of the word "Mills" in any way which may have the capacity or tendency to confuse, mislead, or deceive the purchasing public into the belief that respondent

Published to inform the public of those unfair methods and practices condemned by the commission and to establish precedents that will serve to eliminate unfair business methods of interest to the public and injury to competitors.

The digests published herewith cover those accepted by the commission during the period covered by this volume, namely, June 12, 1929-May 4, 1930. Digests of all previous stipulations of this character accepted by the commission-that is, numbers 1 to 379, inclusive-may be found in Vol. X at p. 461 et seq., Vol. XI at p. 494 et seq., and Vol. XII at p. 514 et seq.

owns, operates, and controls a mill or factory wherein are manufactured or fabricated the products sold by him in interstate commerce. Respondent also agreed that if he should ever resume or indulge in any of the practices in question this said stipulation as to the facts may be used in evidence against him in the trial of the complaint which the commission may issue. (June 12, 1929.)

381. Lottery Merchandising-Malt Extract. Respondent, an individual, engaged in the manufacture of malt extract and in the sale and distribution of the same in interstate commerce, and in competition with other individuals, firms, partnerships, and corporations liekwise engaged, entered into the following stipulation as to the facts and agreement to cease and desist forever from the alleged unfair methods of competition as set forth therein.

Respondent, in the course and conduct of his business, packed in each of about 20 cans or containers in a shipment of 1,200 cans or more of said product a silver half dollar, and with said coin or prize contained therein sold and shipped said product in interstate commerce through his usual channel of distribution, thereby placing in the hands of dealers engaged in the business of selling such product to the purchasing public in means of distributing said product by chance or lottery.

Respondent, in soliciting the sale of and selling his products in interstate commerce, agreed to cease and desist forever from the use in interstate commerce of any scheme, plan, or method of selling or promoting the sale of his product which involves or includes the use of any gift enterprise, lottery, or any scheme of chance whereby any article, coin, or other thing of value is given for or in consideration of the purchase of any other article.

Respondent also agreed that if he should ever resume or indulge in any of the practices in question this said stipulation as to the facts may be used in evidence against him in the trial of the complaint which the commission may issue. (June 12, 1929.)

382. False and Misleading Trade Name and Advertising-Woolens and Dress Goods.-Respondent, an individual, engaged in the sale and distribution of woolens and dress goods in interstate commerce, and in competition with other individuals, firms, partners, and corporations likewise engaged, entered into the following stipulation as to the facts and agreement to cease and desist forever from the alleged unfair methods of competition as set forth therein.

Respondent, in the course and conduct of his business, adopted a trade name containing the word "Mills," and which trade name containing the word "Mills" he used on his letterheads, order blanks, billheads, envelopes, and other printed matter distributed in interstate commerce in soliciting the sale of and selling his products; when in truth and in fact said respondent did not own, control, or operate a

mill or factory in which were manufactured the goods sold and distributed by him, and said respondent filled orders for such products. from materials manufactured in mills or factories which he neither owned, operated, nor controlled.

Respondent agreed to cease and desist forever from the use of the word "Mills" as part of or in connection or conjunction with his trade name, and from the use of the word "Mills" in any other way which may have the capacity and tendency to confuse, mislead, or deceive the purchasing public into the belief that said respondent either owns, controls, or operates a mill or factory wherein are made the products sold by him in interstate commerce.

Respondent also agreed that if he should ever resume or indulge in any of the practices in question this said stipulation as to the facts may be used in evidence against him in the trial of the complaint which the commission may issue. (June 12, 1929.)

383. False and Misleading Trade Name and Advertising-Truck replacement Parts.-Respondent, a corporation, engaged in the sale and distribution of replacement parts for trucks in interstate commerce, and in competition with other corporations, firms, partnerships, and individuals likewise engaged, entered into the following stipulation as to the facts and agreement to cease and desist forever from the alleged unfair methods of competition as set forth therein.

Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business, in soliciting the sale of and selling its products in interstate commerce, adopted as a part of its corporate or trade name the word "Manufacturing," which said corporate or trade name containing the word "Manufacturing" it used in the sale and distribution of its products in interstate commerce, and the said corporate or trade name containing the word "Manufacturing" was also used by the respondent in its said catalogues and other advertising matter and also in connection with a pictorial representation of a large 4-story building, above which were printed the words "The home of the largest truck replacement parts organization in the world," and on the front of which building appeared, in large letters, its corporate or trade name containing the word "Manufacturing"; when in truth and in fact said respondent did not own, control, or operate a plant or factory wherein were manufactured the replacement parts sold and distributed by it in interstate commerce, and the said respondent filled orders for such products from stocks purchased by it from plants or factories which it neither owned, operated, nor controlled.

*

Respondent agreed to cease and desist forever from the use of the word "Manufacturing" as part of or in connection or conjunction with its corporate or trade name in the sale and distribution of its products in interstate commerce; and from the use of its corporate or trade name containing the word "Manufacturing" in its catalogues