ng Corporation, can and will prevent the sale of "Yacal" by the said The Asiatic Company, Inc. t one Paul J. Giese, president of the European Trading Company, Inc., a ngton corporation, "is a German, entirely unscrupulous, unreliable, and ery strong Nazi sympathies." R. 5. In truth and in fact the said the East Asiatic Co., Inc., is d, during the times referred to herein, has not been owned and/or olled by the East Asiatic Co., Ltd., of Denmark nor under the nation or control of the German Government; nor under investin by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or by the Intelligence ion of the United States Navy Department. The said the East ic Co., Inc., has had no charters for steamships cancelled by the ed States Maritime Commission because of any control of said ration by foreign interests. Said corporation is not a "mere" rage firm and, at the time said representation was made, was in ition to sell the hardwood designated "Yacal." There was no for the representation that respondents could prevent the sale of al" by the said the East Asiatic Co., Inc., as they were not in a ion to prevent the sale of "Yacal" or any other commodity by the California corporation. The disparaging statement pertaining e said Paul J. Giese, set out above, was false and unwarranted, espondents had no evidence to support such statement or reason aking the same other than that of discrediting a competitor. R. 6. The practice of respondents as aforesaid, in making, pubg and disseminating false, misleading and deceptive statements inwarrantedly disparaging competitors has had, and now has, the ency and capacity to, and does, mislead and deceive members of purchasing and consuming public into the false and erroneous f that said statements are true, and to unfairly divert, and it has ted, trade to the respondents from their said competitors. R. 7. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein ed, are all to the prejudice of the public and respondents' comors, and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in nerce and unfair methods of competition in commerce within the t and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. ecord closed without prejudice by the following order: his cause coming on to be heard by the Commission upon motion ounsel supporting the complaint to close this case without preje and letter of counsel for the respondents stating in substance they had no objection to this disposition of the proceeding; and appearing to the Commission that this proceeding is based upon alleged dissemination by respondents of certain disparaging statets concerning the activities of certain competitors during the gress of World War II; and It appearing that such disparaging statements have no v The Commission having considered said motion and ther herein and being of the opinion that further proceedings to d issues of this proceeding would not be in the public interest: It is ordered, That this proceeding be, and the same her closed without prejudice to the right of the Commission, sho the termination of the war; and ture in facts so warrant, to reopen the same and resume trial the accordance with its regular procedure. Before Mr. Miles J. Furnas, trial examiner. Bogle, Bogle & Gates, of Seattle, Wash., for respondents 1948. (Docket 4619.) Order, January Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly and using misle trade or product name as to composition; in connection with thes of women's shoes, made from "Vinylite", under the trade "Glastique". COMPLAINT: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trad mission Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by s the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Sa Co., a corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has vi the provisions of said act, and it appearing to the Commission th proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public inter hereby issues its complaint, stating its charges in that respect a lows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Saks & Co. is a corporation organis existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of t State of New York, with principal offices located at Fifth Are and Fiftieth Street, New York, N. Y. Respondent has a plac business at Thirty-fourth Street and Broadway, New York, N. under the trade name Saks Thirty-fourth Street, and places of b ness at Fifth Avenue and Fiftieth Street, New York, N. Y.; Gr wich, Conn.; Detroit, Mich.; Chicago, Ill.; and Beverly Hills, Cal under the trade name Saks Fifth Avenue. Respondent maintains and operates retail stores at said places business, located as above set out, wherein respondent engages in over-the-counter and the mail-order sale of numerous and varied a Icles of general merchandise including women's shoes made fr Vinylite, an organic material of glasslike appearance. Respondent is now, and for more than 1 year last past has bee engaged in the sale and distribution of said merchandise in commen among and between the various States of the United States and in istrict of Columbia. Respondent causes said merchandise, when to be transported from its places of business situated as aforesaid purchasers thereof located in various other States of the United and in the District of Columbia. pondent maintains, and at all times mentioned herein has main, a course of trade in said merchandise sold and distributed by commerce among and between the various States of the United and in the District of Columbia. R. 2. "Vinylite" is the registered trade mark of a chemically factured, plasticized, resinous material resembling glass. en's shoes made from said material are purchased by respondent various manufacturers and are advertised, offered for sale and by respondent under the trade name "Glastique," respondent's name for shoes made from said material. R. 3. Processes for the fabrication of inorganic glass into matesuitable for use in the manufacture of various men's accessories, ll as women's accessories and household furnishings, have been oped and are now in process of being developed at considerable ase by various members of the glass industry. Many such articles erchandise made from inorganic glass materials have already manufactured and amidst wide publicity have been and are being eted and sold to a public long accustomed to the worth and the f glass. R. 4. Respondent, to promote the sale and distribution of said made from Vinylite in the conduct of its business in said come as aforesaid, has caused to be inserted in various newspapers g a wide general circulation among purchasers in various of the al States of the United States and in the District of Columbia, in advertisements illustrative of such shoes. Said advertisements picuously state that the shoes therein offered for sale by respondre Glastique shoes and contain, among others, the following state any of said advertistments quote the retail price at which said. s may be purchased and further list the addresses of respondent's ous stores from which said merchandise may be obtained. AR. 5. Respondent, through and by means of the aforesaid adverments and the statements therein contained, represents and implies e purchasing public that shoes made from Vinylite and offered for and sold by respondent under the trade name Glastique are ally made and constructed of glass. Respondent's use of the word stique as a trade name descriptive of shoes made from Vinylite further serves as a representation by respondent that said sho PAR. 6. Respondent's said statements, representations and tions, and use of the trade name Glastique in connection offering for sale, sale and distribution of shoes made from Vinta aforesaid, are false, misleading, and deceptive. made from or contain glass. In truth and in fact, said shoes made from Vinylite contain glast whatsoever, for the product known as Vinylite is not a with a special catalytic agent and chemicals to induce the form certain gases and distillates, which, in cooling, result in thes resin product known as Vinylite. PAR. 7. Respondent's acts and practices in using said stateme representations and implications, made and disseminated as afors and in using said word Glastique as a trade name for said shoes, had and now have the tendency and capacity to, and do, mislead deceive a substantial portion of the purchasing public into the em and mistaken belief that said statements, representations, and plications are true and that said shoes are made from or containg and thereby cause a substantial portion of the purchasing p because of said erroneous and mistaken belief, to purchase said sh ous to their injury and to the injury of the public. alleged, are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and consti Record closed without prejudice by the following order: objection to the granting of the motion. Docket No. 4450, S. Buchsbaum & Co., in which an order to cease L The issues involved in this case are substantially similar to those a desist issued by the Commission has recently been set aside by United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. testimony or other evidence has been introduced in the present c the trial of the case having been held in abeyance pending the t and final decision in the Buchsbaum case. The Commission is of opinion that, in the circumstances, the motion is well taken. It is therefore ordered, That the motion be granted, and that th case be, and it hereby is, closed without prejudice to the right of the Commission to reopen it and resume trial thereof in accordance wi See 43 F. T. C. 1217. Commission's regular procedure should future circumstances and ublic interest so require. r. Eldon P. Schrup for the Commission. iadbourne, Wallace, Parke & Whiteside, of New York City, for ondent. ICKOK MANUFACTURING Co. Complaint, January 23, 1942. er, January 26, 1948. (Docket 4680.) large: Advertising falsely or misleadingly, misbranding or misling, and using misleading trade or product name as to composi; in connection with the manufacture and sale of various men's ssories, including suspenders or braces, belts, garters, key chains wallets made from "Vinylite," under respondent's registered e-mark and trade name "Live Glas." ecord closed without prejudice by the following order: his cause coming on to be heard before the Commission upon ion by counsel supporting the complaint that the case be closed out prejudice and answer of respondent's counsel thereto that ondent has no objection to the granting of the motion; and appearing to the Commission that the issues involved in this case substantially similar to those in Docket No. 4450, S. Buchsbaum 0., in which an order to cease and desist issued by the Commission recently been set aside by the United States Circuit Court of eals for the Seventh Circuit; and 8 - appearing that no testimony or other evidence has been introed in the present case, the trial thereof having been held in abeypending the trial and final decision in the Buchsbaum case; and The Commission having considered the motion and answer thereto the record herein and being now fully advised in the premises: is ordered, That the case growing out of the complaint herein be, the same hereby is, closed without prejudice to the right of the mission to reopen it and resume trial thereof in accordance with Commission's regular procedure, should future circumstances and public interest so require. r. Eldon P. Schrup for the Commission. r. Eben Halley and Oviatt, Gilman, O'Brien & Forman, of hester, N. Y., for respondent. IONEER SUSPENDER Co. Complaint, January 23, 1942. Order, uary 26, 1948. (Docket 4681.) harge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly, misbranding or misling and using misleading trade or product name as to composition; ee 43 F. T. C. 1217. |