has had and now has the capacity and tendency to and does misind and deceive a substantial number of prospective distributors and parchasers of respondent's products into the erroneous and mistake belief that such false statements and representations are true and tha: they will receive from the respondent the items described as a gift gratuity and without cost and unconditionally. As a result thereof, a substantial quantity of respondent's said products have been pr chased in said commerce.

PAR. 7. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent as ber alleged are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and consta unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce within the m and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Record closed without prejudice by the following order:

This cause coming on to be heard by the Commission upon the peti tion of the respondent to dismiss the complaint without prejudice an upon answer of counsel supporting the compaint; and

It appearing from said petition that the respondent had dans tinued the practices charged in the complaint prior to the issuance o said complaint; and

It further appearing that the respondent in and by said petitions agreed that in the event the respondent should at any time hereaf use said complained of representations in the advertising of its prob ucts offered for sale and sold in interstate commerce, the Commis upon determination of such facts, shall have the right, without furthe proceedings, to make findings as to the facts in accordance with the allegations of the complaint and conclusions drawn from said fincing as to the facts and to issue such cease and desist order as it may d proper; and

The Commission having considered said petition, answer thers and the record herein and being now fully advised in the premises: It is ordered, That the case growing out of the complaint herein be and the same hereby is, closed without prejudice to the right of t Commission, should future facts so warrant, to reopen the same take such action as it may deem necessary or appropriate in accorda with its regular procedure.

Before Mr. Randolph Preston, trial examiner.

Mr. D. C. Daniel for the Commission.

Mr. William J. Lancaster, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.

HITING-ADAMS Co., INC., STAR BRUSH MANUFACTURING CO., INC., RICAN BRUSH Co., INC., ET AL. Complaint, December 28, 1945. er, December 18, 1947. (Docket 5412.)

arge: Misbranding or mislabeling as to composition of product; ›nnection with the manufacture and sale of paint, varnish, and ehold brushes.

MPLAINT: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Comion Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said act, the ral Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Whitingms Co., Inc., a corporation; Star Brush Manufacturing Co., Inc., poration; American Brush Co., Inc., a corporation; Alex Schun, individually and as an officer of Whiting-Adams Co., Inc., and Brush Manufacturing Co., Inc.; Lawrence R. Schumann, indially and as an officer of Whiting-Adams Co., Inc., and Star Brush ufacturing Co., Inc.; Leroy E. Foulkrod, individually and as ficer of Whiting-Adams Co., Inc., and Star Brush Manufacturing Inc.; Frank L. Kozal, individually and as an officer of Star Brush ufacturing Co., Inc.; Abraham Furst, individually and as an er of American Brush Co., Inc.; and Melvin Furst, individually and n officer of American Brush Co., Inc., hereinafter referred to as ondents, have violated the provisions of said act, and it appearing e Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be he public interest, hereby issues its complaint, stating its charges hat respect as follows:

ARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Star Brush Manufacturing Co., Inc., is ew York corporation with its principal place of business located he city of Boston, State of Massachusetts. Respondent Whitingms Co., Inc., is a Massachusetts corporation with its principal e of business located in the city of Boston, State of Massachusetts, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Star Brush Manufacturing Co., Respondent American Brush Co., Inc., is a Massachusetts poration with its principal place of business located in the city of bury, State of Massachusetts.

dividual respondent Alex Schumann is chairman of the boards irectors of Whiting-Adams Co., Inc., and of Star Brush Manuuring Co., Inc., respectively. Individual respondent Lawrence Schumann is president and treasurer of Whiting-Adams Co., Inc., of Star Brush Manufacturing Co., Inc. Individual respondent by E. Foulkrod is vice president of Whiting-Adams Co., Inc., and tar Brush Manufacturing Co., Inc. Individual respondent Frank Kozal is secretary of Star Brush Manufacturing Co., Inc. Indial respondent Abraham Furst is president and treasurer of Amer

ican Brush Co., Inc. Individual respondent Melvin Furst is secretary of American Brush Co., Inc.

Acting in their various official capacities and in cooperation w each other, said individual respondents formulate, direct, and convi the acts, policies, and business affairs of the respondent corporates with which they are respectively connected. All of said responders during the 5 years last past have acted together and cooperated es with the other in doing the acts and things hereinafter alleged.

PAR. 2. Respondents are now and for some years past have be engaged in the sale and distribution of brushes. Respondents ca said products, when sold, to be shipped from the places of businen the State of Massachusetts to the purchasers thereof located in other States of the United States and in the District of Columbia.

Respondents maintain and at all times mentioned herein have main tained a course of trade in their said products in commerce between and among the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia.

Respondents Whiting-Adams Co., Inc., and Star Brush Manfsturing Co., Inc., are engaged principally in the manufacture and sale of paint and varnish brushes, their output being supplied to jobbers and chain stores throughout the country. Respondent American Brush Co., Inc., is engaged in the manufacture and sale of househo brushes and in the jobbing of paint and varnish brushes manufactured by respondent Whiting-Adams Co., Inc., and Star Brush Manufac turing Co., Inc., and others.

PAR. 3. The word or term "bristle," used in connection with the manufacture of brushes, particularly paint and varnish brushes. idicates the strong resilient hairs which grow on the back of the ha For the manufacture of painters' brushes, no material has been foun acceptable but the bristles of the hog which have a fag or split and tending to hold the paint. The best quality of bristle comes fre Russia and China, where certain breeds of hogs are raised especially for their bristles. Bristles are also imported from Germany and France and from the Argentine. The better quality of bristles of tained from hogs that are slaughtered at packing houses is also use. in the industry. Notwithstanding the great variety of possible m terial that might be employed in the manufacture of brushes, about 92 percent of all brushes in normal times are made from the bristles of the hog. Among the better known but cheaper and inferior products used as adulterants or substitutes in the manufacture of paint and varnish brushes are horse hair and wood or vegetable fibers. Neither of these approaches the much higher-priced genuine bristle from the standpoint of excellency, quality, and efficiency. There is a

d preference on the part of members of the consuming public int and varnish brushes that are made entirely of genuine

4. In the course and conduct of their aforesaid business and e purpose of inducing the purchase of their brushes, respondents caused the handles of certain of said brushes to be stamped, d or labeled with the words "BRISTLE AND HORSEHAIR," or "BRIS[ORSEHAIR AND FIBER."

5. The practice of respondents to stamp brushes with the ; “BRISTLE AND HORSEHAIR" constitutes a representation to the that one-half or more of the material of which said brush is osed consists of bristle; and the practice of respondents to stamp es with the words "BRISTLE, HORSEHAIR AND FIBER" constitutes resentation to the purchasing public either that said brushes mped are composed of equal parts of bristle, horsehair and fiber, it said brushes are composed predominantly of bristle with equal of horsehair and fiber, or more horsehair than fiber. R. 6. In truth and in fact, the brushes stamped "BRISTLE AND EHAIR" and sold by respondents as hereinabove stated contain horsehair than bristle and those stamped "BRISTLE, HORSEHAIR FIBER" do not contain equal parts of bristle, horsehair and fiber, re not composed predominantly of bristle.

R. 7. The aforesaid acts, practices, and representations of the ndents have had and now have the tendency and capacity to and nd do deceive and mislead a substantial portion of the purchasing c into the erroneous and mistaken belief that the aforesaid repretions and implications are true, and into the purchase of subial quantities of respondents' brushes because of such erroneous mistaken belief so induced.

R. 8. The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondents, as n alleged, are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and itute unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce within ntent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. smissed without prejudice by the following order:

e respondents in this matter (except one of the individual redents who had died since the issuance of the complaint) having ated and tendered to the Commission a stipulation of facts and ement to cease and desist covering substantially all of the issues d in the complaint, and it appearing that respondents have long discontinued the practices complained of and that there is good on to believe that such practices will not be resumed, and it furappearing that the failure to dispose of the matter by stipulation

prior to the issuance of complaint was due largely to a misundersanding with respect to the purport and effect of the proposed stipulate and the Commission being of the opinion that in the circumstances the public interest does not require further corrective action by the Cmission in the matter at the present time, and the Commission having therefore approved and accepted said stipulation and agreement

It is ordered, That the complaint herein be, and it hereby missed without prejudice to the right of the Commission to take s further action in the matter in the future as may be warranted by th then existing circumstances.

Mr. Joseph Callaway for the Commission.

Friedman, Atherton, King & Turner, of Boston, Mass., and Rees B. Gillespie, of Washington, D. C., for Whiting-Adams Co. In Star Brush Manufacturing Co., Inc., Alex Shumann and Frank Kozal.

Mr. Francis J. Monahan and Mr. Joseph J. Mulhern, of Best Mass., for American Brush Co., Inc., Abraham Furst and Mel Furst.

THE ANACIN Co., AND HILL BLACKETT AND GLEN SAMPLE, DA BUSINESS AS BLACKETT-SAMPLE-HUMMERT, INC. Complaint, Sepe ber 5, 1944. Order, January 2, 1948. (Docket 5213.)

Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly as to qualities, prop ties or results, professional indorsement, sponsorship or approval an safety of product and neglecting, unfairly or deceptively, to make m terial disclosure as to safety of product; in connection with the sale a medicinal preparation known and designated as Anacin Tab COMPLAINT: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Co mission Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said a the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that The Anacin Co., a corporation, and Hill Blackett and Glen Sample, partners doing business as Blackett-Sample-Hummert, Inc., here after referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of s act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its c plaint, stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent The Anacin Co. is a corporation orga ized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Ne Jersey, with its principal place of business at 257 Cornelison Aven Jersey City, N. J.

Respondents Hill Blackett and Glen Sample are copartners doing business as Blackett-Sample-Hummert, Inc., with their principal place of business at 221 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, Ill.