ted and used by the public as glass. Merchandise containing or ufactured, fabricated or constructed in whole or in part of said or plastic, while imitative in appearance and indicated funcal use, is not merchandise containing glass or merchandise manured, fabricated, or constructed in whole or in part of glass nor it have certain of the properties of the same. R. 8. Respondent's acts and practices as hereinbefore detailed in use of the foregoing trade journal, magazine, and periodical adsements, labels, booklets, pamphlets and other printed materials the illustrations, statements, representations and implications ained in or appearing thereon, published and disseminated as esaid, together with the use of the word or term "Plexiglas" as a stered trade-mark and trade name for the said plastic material, uct or merchandise as hereinbefore described, have had and now the capacity and tendency to and do confuse, mislead, and dea substantial portion of the purchasing public into the erroneous mistaken belief and impression that said plastic material or uct is glass, or that merchandise manufactured, fabricated, conng or constructed in whole or in part of such plastic material roduct, is made from or contains glass, and further cause a subtial portion of said purchasing public, because of said erroneous mistaken belief and impression, to purchase said plastic material roduct or the merchandise manufactured, fabricated, containing onstructed in whole or in part of said plastic material or product. espondent's said acts and practices, as hereinbefore detailed, place he hands of manufacturers, fabricators, retail merchants and rs advertising, handling or marketing such plastic material or luct or merchandise manufactured, fabricated, containing or concted in whole or in part of such plastic material or product, a ns and an instrumentality whereby in the offering for sale and of said plastic material or products, or merchandise manufactured abricated from, or containing or constructed in whole or in part n the same, the purchasing public may be confused, misled, and ived in manner and method as hereinbefore described. AR. 9. The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondent as herein ged are all to the prejudice of the public and constitute unfair and ptive acts and practices within the intent and meaning of the eral Trade Commission Act. ecord closed without prejudice by the following order: his cause coming on to be heard before the Commission upon moby counsel supporting the complaint that the case be closed withprejudice and answer of respondent's counsel thereto that respondhas no objection to the granting of the motion; and 789940-50-76 I are Co. has Substantially similar to those in Docket No. 4450, S. Buch appearing to the Commission that the issues involved in this in which an order to cease and desist issued by the Com1) 1ecently been set aside by the United States Circuit Courd appearing that no testimony or other evidence has been pe a 1s It 11 for the Seventh Circuit; " and ance pending the trial and final decision in the Buchsbaum case; The Commission having considered the motion and answerte and the record herein and being now fully advised in the premises It is ordered, That the case growing out of the complaint herer and the same hereby is, closed without prejudice to the right Commission to reopen it and resume trial thereof in accordance the Commission's regular procedure, should future circumstances the public interest so require. Mr. Eldon P. Schrup for the Commission. Cravath, Swaine & Moore, of New York City, for respondet THE BRIARWOOD CORP. Complaint, December 4, 1934. O order, February 20, 1935. Docket 2255, 20 F. T. C. 170. Order at ing, etc., October 16, 1941. 33 F. T. C. 1644. January 27, 1948. Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly Order closing. as to nature of produ in connection with the manufacture and sale of smoking pipes. after due notice thereof. process Findings as to the facts (based upon a stipulation of facts) and order to cease and desist were issued in this proceeding on Febra 20, 1935. On August 15, 1941, the Acting Chief Counsel of the C mission filed a motion to vacate and set aside the stipulation of fai findings as to the facts, and order to cease and desist in this p ing on the ground that the order to cease and desist had not elimina "confusion and misunderstanding among members of the pipe trai and the purchasing public," that the order to cease and desist did adequately protect the public interest, and that further proceeding for that purpose were necessary. Thereafter, on October 16, 1941 respondent having consented to the granting of said motion, wi certain reservations, an order was entered vacating and setting a the stipulation of facts, the findings as to the facts and conclusion 11 See 43 F. T. C. 1217. he order to cease and desist, except that portion of the order disng the charges in the complaint as to respondent's corporate and name. By order of May 6, 1947, a motion by counsel supporting omplaint to dismiss the complaint without prejudice was denied ack of showing that further proceedings to protect the public est were not necessary. e motion to close the case without prejudice shows that subset to the denial of the aforesaid motion to dismiss the complaint out prejudice an investigation was made of the operations of redent, and the allegations of fact in the motion indicate that the tigation disclosed no present basis for further proceedings under riginal complaint or for the issuance of a new complaint, and it fore appearing to the Commission that the motion should be ted: is ordered That this case be, and the same hereby is, closed without idice to the right of the Commission to reopen the same or institute proceedings should future facts warrant such action. . Clark Nichols for the Commission. . William H. Rosenfeld, of Cleveland, Ohio, for respondent. A. FOLGER & CO. Complaint, October 28, 1942. Order, January 948. (Docket 4859.) harge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly as to qualities, props or results, comparative merits, competitive products and source igin of product; in connection with the sale of coffee. smissed without prejudice by the following order: is cause coming on to be heard before the Commission upon the plaint, answer, recommended decision of the trial examiner, and on of respondent requesting disposition of the case by stipulation; appearing to the Commission that subsequent to the filing of said on and the issuance of the recommended decision of the trial iner, the respondent entered into a formal stipulation as to the and agreement to cease and desist, dated November 20, 1947, in No. 1-7330; and appearing to the Commission that the practices which the redent agreed to discontinue in said stipulation as to the facts and ement to cease and desist in File No. 1-7330 are substantially the e as those practices which were incorporated in the complaint in proceeding; and further appearing that said stipulation and agreement to cease desist is now before the Commission for its consideration and the mission being of the opinion that said stipulation as to the facts and agreement to cease and desist makes full disposition of the issues in the present proceeding: It is ordered, That the stipulation as to the facts and agreement to cease and desist, dated November 20, 1947, filed in File No. 1-7be and the same hereby is, approved by the Commission, and its further ordered that said stipulation as to the facts and agreement "i cease and desist be filed in and made a part of the record in the proceeding. It is further ordered, That the complaint herein be, and the same hereby is, dismissed without prejudice. Before Mr. James A. Purcell and Mr. Everett F. Haycraft, wa examiner. Mr. Randolph W. Branch for the Commission. Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, of San Francisco, Calif., and Corireton, Burling, Rublee, Acheson & Shorb, of Washington, D. C., fr respondent. J. A. FOLGER & Co. Complaint, October 28, 1942. Order, Janusy 27, 1948. (Docket 4860.) Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly as to source or org comparative merits, competitive products, qualities, properties or 1sults and indorsement, sponsorship or approval of product; in comes tion with the sale of coffee. Dismissed without prejudice by the following order: This cause is before the Commission upon complaint and a for final disposition in connection with proceeding against J. A Folger & Co., a California corporation, in docket 4859; and It appearing to the Commission that subsequent to the filing of the complaint and answer herein, the respondent entered into a stipu tion as to the facts and agreement to cease and desist, dated Noventer 21, 1947, in file No. 1-7330; and It appearing to the Commission that the practices which the re spondent agreed to discontinue in said stipulation as to the facts a agreement to cease and desist in file No. 1-7330 are substantially the same as those practices which were incorporated in the complaint this proceeding; and It further appearing that said stipulation and agreement to vers and desist is now before the Commission for its consideration and the Commission being of the opinion that said stipulation as to the facts and agreement to cease and desist makes full disposition of the issue in the present proceeding: It is ordered, That the stipulation as to the facts and agreement te 12 See stipulation 7667 on page 1319 of this volume. and desist, dated November 21, 1947, filed in file No. 1-7330,13 nd the same hereby is, approved by the Commission, and it is er ordered that said stipulation as to the facts and agreement ase and desist be filed in and made a part of the record in this eding. is further ordered, That the complaint herein be, and the same y is, dismissed without prejudice. fore Mr. J. Earl Cox, trial examiner. Randolph W. Branch for the Commission. Edward S. North, of Kansas City, Mo., and Mr. John Wattawa, ashington, D. C., for respondent. LAX, INC. AND THE JOSEPH KATZ Co. Complaint, July 16, 1943. , January 27, 1948. (Docket 5007.) arge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly as to qualities, properr results and neglecting, unfairly or deceptively, to make madisclosure as to safety of product; in connection with the sale medicinal preparation designated "Ex-Lax." MPLAINT: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Comon Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said act, ederal Trade Commission, having reason to believe Ex-Lax, Inc., he Joseph Katz Co., hereinafter referred to as respondents, have ted the provisions of the said act, and it appearing to the Comon that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the c interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that ct as follows: RAGRAPH 1. Respondent Ex-Lax, Inc., is a corporation organized xisting under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York its principal office and place of business located at 423-443 AtAvenue, Brooklyn, N. Y. R. 2. This respondent is now, and for several years last past has engaged in selling and distributing a medicinal preparation dested "Ex-Lax." In the course and conduct of its business redent Ex-Lax, Inc., causes and has caused said medicinal preparawhen sold, to be shipped and transported from its said place of ness in the State of New York to purchasers thereof located in ous other States of the United States and in the District of Coia. Respondent maintains and at all times mentioned herein has tained a course of trade in its said medicinal preparation in nerce between and among the various States of the United States n the District of Columbia. e Stipulation 7666 on p. 1318 of this volume. |