State of New York, with its principal office and place of business located at 7 West Thirtieth Street, New York, N. Y.

PAR. 2. Respondent is now and since June 19, 1936, has been engaged in the business of processing, manufacturing, offering for sale, selling and distributing made-to-order, straight-line stamps, hereinafter re ferred to as rubber stamps. These stamps are sold by respondent direct to the consuming public. Some of the customers of respondent purchasing its stamps are located in States of the United States other than the State in which respondent's business is located and other cus tomers, although located within the State in which respondent's business is located, direct that their purchases be shipped by respondent to such customers' branch offices located in States other than that in which respondent's business is located. In such cases respondent causes the stamps to be shipped and transported across State lines from respondent's place of business to such customers or to their branch offices. There is now and at all times mentioned herein has been a continuous course of trade and commerce in such stamps between respondent's factory and the purchasers of the stamps. The stamps are sold and distributed for use within the various States of the United States.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of its business in commerce as aforesaid, respondent is now and at all times mentioned herein has been in substantial competition with other corporations and with individuals, partnerships and firms engaged in the business of processing, manufacturing, offering for sale, selling and distributing rubber stamps.

PAR. 4. In the course and conduct of its business, as aforesaid, respondent, since June 19, 1936, has been and is now discriminating in price between different purchasers of its stamps by selling such stamps to some of its customers at prices higher than those at which it sells stamps of like grade and quality to other customers.

Among the general practices pursued by respondent in so discriminating in price are the following:

(1) To some customers respondent has sold rubber stamps 3 inches or less in length and three-eighths inch or less in height at 4 cents per line, plus 4 cents for each additional line or any fraction thereof, while to other customers purchasing the same type of rubber stamp of like grade and quality, respondent has charged for each product varying prices of 5, 7, 8, 10, 15, 20, 30, or 35 cents per line 3 inches or less in length and three-eighths inch or less in height plus in each instance an additional sum for each additional line or any fraction thereof.

(2) Respondent has sold at approximately the same time rubber tamps of like grade and quality at varying prices of 4, 5, 7, 10, and 5 cents per line 2 inches or less in length and three-eighths inch or ss in height plus in each instance an additional sum for each addiional line or any fraction thereof.

PAR. 5. The effect of the discriminations in price set forth in pararaph 4 has been and may be substantially to lessen competition and › injure, destroy, and prevent competition between respondent and 's competitors in the sale and distribution of rubber stamps in intertate commerce, and has been and may be to tend to create a monopoly a respondent in such line of commerce.

CONCLUSION

The acts and practices of respondent as herein found are in violation of the provisions of subsection (a) of section 2 of the aforesaid Clayton Act, as amended.

ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST

This proceeding having been heard by the Federal Trade Commision upon the complaint of the Commission and the answer of respondnt, in which answer respondent admitted all of the material allegaions of fact in the complaint but denied that the facts alleged conituted a violation of the statute in question, and upon briefs in support of and in opposition to the complaint and oral argument, and the Commission having made its findings as to the facts and its conclusion that respondent has violated the provisions of subsection (a) of section 2 of the act of Congress entitled "An act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes," approved October 15, 1914 (the Clayton Act), as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, approved June 19, 1936 (15 U. S. C., sec. 13): It is ordered, That the respondent, Unity Stamp Co., Inc., a corporation, and its officers, agents, representatives, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the sale of rubber stamps in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the aforesaid Clayton Act, do forthwith cease and desist from—

1. Discriminating, directly or indirectly, in the price of rubber -tamps of comparable size and like grade and quality by selling such bber stamps to any purchaser at a price or prices materially different from those at which sales are made to any other purchaser: Provided, horerer, That this prohibition shall not be construed as prohibiting Gifferentials permitted by section 2 of the Clayton Act as amended.

2. Otherwise discriminating in price, either directly or indirectl among different purchasers of rubber stamps of like grade and qualit in any manner prohibited by section 2 (a) of the Clayton Act amended.

It is further ordered, That the respondent shall, within 60 days aft service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report in wri ing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has co plied with this order.

Syllabus

IN THE MATTER OF

PAUL CASE

MPLAINT, FINDINGS, AND ORDER IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 5 OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 26, 1914

Docket 4813. Complaint, Aug. 14, 1942-Decision, Oct. 24, 1947

here an individual engaged in the interstate sale and distribution of his “Case Combination New Method Improved”—also designated as "The New Improved Case Combination Method" and "Case Combination Formula"-which consisted of two medicinal preparations, designated as "Formula No. 1" and "Formula No. 2,” recommended for use in combination in the treatment of rheumatism, arthritis, sciatica, neuritis, and similar conditions; through advertisements in newspapers and periodicals, and by form letters, circulars, and other advertising media; directly and by implication

Represented that his said "Combination Method" was a cure or remedy and constituted a competent and effective treatment for rheumatism, sciatica, arthritis, neuritis, and neuralgia and that said treatment would relieve the pains symptomatic of, and associated with, such conditions, and that the longer the treatment was taken the greater the improvement and the more lasting the benefit; and

b) Represented that the formulas for his said medicinal preparations constituted a recognized and accepted therapeutic treatment used and prescribed by the medical profession for the treatment of aforesaid diseases, and of pains that affect the joints and muscles, and that the use of each of said preparations in conjunction with the other increased the therapeutic value of each preparation;

Then in fact they had no therapeutic value in the treatment of such conditions in excess of furnishing temporary relief from minor pains symptomatic of, or associated with such diseases and conditions; had no curative action on the underlying factors that cause the symptoms of pain; and various aforesaid representations were false;

With capacity and tendency to mislead and deceive a substantial portion of the purchasing public into the erroneous belief that such representations were true and thereby into the purchase of substantial quantities of the preparations concerned:

Held, That such acts and practices, under the circumstances set forth, were all to the prejudice and injury of the public and constituted unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce.

In a proceeding in which the complaint challenged respondent's representations in behalf of two preparations offered by him as a combination method for the treatment of rheumatism, sciatica, arthritis, neuralgia, and neuritis, and in which one of the respondents testified that hyperacidity and constipation were among the causative factors of such diseases, but admitted that this was his own theory and that it was contrary to accepted medical opinion, the testimony of other expert witnesses indicated that said theory was contrary to the consensus of such opinion.

In a proceeding in which the complaint charged that respondent, in connecti with the offering and sale of his combination method for the treatment rheumatism, sciatica, arthritis, neuralgia, asthma, and neuritis, consisti of his so-called Formula No. 1 and Formula No. 2, had failed to reveal th the latter, because of its irritant-laxative content, might be potential dangerous when taken as directed or under usual conditions, the Commiss was of the opinion, after considering the record and the nature of t remedies to be applied, that under the circumstances in the case and in vi of the nature and extent of the testimony adduced in the proceeding, warning as to potential danger should be required in the advertising there Before Mr. Miles J. Furnas and Mr. Charles B. Bayly, t examiners.

Mr. Joseph Callaway for the Commission.

Mr. George Landesman, of New York City, for respondent.

COMPLAINT

Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission A and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said act, the Feder Trade Commission having reason to believe that Paul Case, an i dividual, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated the pr visions of said act, and it appearing to the Commission that a pr ceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, here issues its complaint, stating its charges in that respect as follow PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Paul Case is an individual trading a doing business under his own name with his principal office and pla of business located at 33 Hamilton Street, Brockton, Mass.

PAR. 2. Respondent is engaged in the sale and distribution of alleged treatment for pains affecting joints and muscles, and for t pains of rheumatism, arthritis, sciatica, and neuralgia, variously des nated "Case Combination New Improved Method," "The New I proved Case Combination Method," and "Case Combination F mulae," hereinafter referred to as "Case Combination Method consisting of two medicinal preparations designated Formula N and Formula No. 2, respectively.

Respondent causes said "Case Combination Method" and the i dividual preparations of which it is composed, when sold. to transported from his place of business in the State of Massachuset to the purchasers thereof located in various other States of the Uni States. At all times mentioned herein respondent has maintained course of trade in his said "Case Combination Method" and the i dividual medicinal preparations of which it is composed, in commer between and among the various States of the United States.