majority does not subscribe to the reasons or reasoning upon wiri the concurring opinion is based.

Before Mr. John W. Norwood, trial examiner.

Mr. Everett F. Haycraft and Mr. Lewis F. Depro for the Commission.

Sullivan, Roche, Johnson & Farraher, of San Francisco, Calif, fır i Grocery Distributors Ass'n of Northern California, its officers ani . directors, and V. Traverso Co.

Orrick, Dahlquist, Neff, Brown & Herrington, of San Franc Calif., and Hanson, Lovett & Dale, of Washington, D. C., for Safer Stores, Inc., its officers, agents and employees.

Mr. Clarence A. Shuey, of San Francisco, Calif., for Ernest I Mendenhall.

PETER GALASSO AND HERMAN DANIEL, DOING BUSINESS AS G VALUE BARGAIN HOUSE. Complaint, August 23, 1943. Order. Aƒ ̃ 5, 1948. (Docket 5034.)

Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly as to condition, vale. composition, source or origin, and quality of products and second-hand or old as new, and neglecting, unfairly or deceptive, make material disclosure with respect thereto and as to composite products, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act: a misbranding or mislabeling as to composition and source or orignố product, and neglecting, unfairly, or deceptively to make materiai disclosure with respect thereto, in violation of the Wool Profes Labeling Act of 1939; in connection with the buying of new and el worn and previously used articles of clothing, including dresses, 4727 coats, men's and boys' suits, hats and shoes, and thereafter selling sa d merchandise by mail order directly to the purchasing public ai purchasers thereof for resale to the purchasing public.

Record closed without prejudice by the following order:

This matter coming on for consideration by the Commission tat a motion filed by counsel supporting the complaint that the proceeding be closed without prejudice and upon the answer filed by counsel respondents consenting to the motion, and it appearing that the b ness in which respondents were formerly engaged and which forts the subject matter of the proceeding has long been discontinued. the Commission being of the view that in the circumstances the phi interest does not require further corrective action in the matter at tå present time:

It is ordered, That the motion be granted and that this proceeding and it hereby is, closed without prejudice to the right of the Couns sion to reopen it and take such further action therein in the future may be warranted by the then existing circumstances.

ore Mr. John H. Hornor, trial examiner.

John M. Russell for the Commission.

Henry H. Diener, of New York City, for respondents.

NITE WATERPROOF GLUE CO. Complaint, February 5, 1940. , April 15, 1948. (Docket 4013.)

rge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly, misbranding or misng, and assuming or using misleading trade or corporate name qualities, properties or results of product; in connection with the facturer and sale of a glue product known as Monite Waterproof

nplaint dismissed without prejudice by the following order: is matter coming on to be heard by the Commission upon the laint, respondent's answer thereto, testimony and other evidence luced before a trial examiner of the Commission, the trial examreport and recommendation, briefs in support of and in opposio the complaint, and oral argument; and

appearing to the Commission that while respondent's product ite Waterproof Glue" is not "waterproof," "weatherproof," or ervious to water," in the absolute sense of those terms, the record not show that said product does not possess qualities necessary to e it to withstand the effects of water under reasonable and normal itions of its use and for the normal life of the article to which it is ed; and

appearing further that respondent's product is sold exclusively to facturers of plywood, furniture, millwork, and other industrial for use in their own manufacturing operations, and that there evidence from which it may be concluded that such users are y to be deceived by the advertising representations complained of y the use of the term "Waterproof" in respondent's corporate e; and

e Commission being of the opinion that in the circumstances the ic interest does not require further corrective action at this time: is ordered, That the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dised without prejudice to the right of the Commission to institute w proceeding against the respondent or to take such further or r action in the future as may be warranted by the then existing imstances.

fore Mr. L. C. Russell, Mr. Miles J. Furnas, and Mr. John W. ison, trial examiners.

r. Clark Nichols, Mr. S. F. Rose, Mr. Edward L. Smith, and George M. Martin for the Commission.

eonard, Street & Deinard, of Minneapolis, Minn., for respondent.

HOLLYWOOD ATHLETIC Co. Complaint, August 28, 1945. Or, June 21, 1948. (Docket 5373.)

Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly, misbranding or m labeling and misrepresenting directly or orally by self or representi tives as to being an officially selected and designated "Future Farmen of America" dealer, authorized to manufacture, produce and l student members of F. F. A. goods and products, and as to said got and products' approval, indorsement, sponsorship and authoriz by the F. F. A. as official equipment thereof; in connection with s sale of all kinds of athletic and sporting goods and in connection the manufacture and sale of banners, pennants, flags, emblems. irsignia, hats, caps, sweaters, sweater lettering, and similar artis particularly desired and customarily used by students of scho colleges, and universities.

Record closed without prejudice by the following order:

This matter came on to be heard in regular course upon motion April 14, 1948, by counsel supporting the complaint, to close the s without prejudice, to which no answer has been filed by responde

The complaint herein charged the respondent with unfair af deceptive acts and practices in commerce in the sale and distrib of athletic and sporting goods, including banners, pennants. emblems, insignia, hats, caps, sweaters, sweater lettering, and sin articles, through the unauthorized use in advertising said artichs and the unauthorized use thereon of the officially adopted name is itials, insignia, or emblem of a nonprofit organization known as Fu Farmers of America.

It appears to the Commission that the advertising representati made by respondent were discontinued late in 1941 and have not vess resumed, that no merchandise bearing the F. F. A. emblem has e sold by respondent since 1942, and that no complaints have ever bes made by purchasers of said merchandise. The Commission is of opinion that the public interest does not require further corrett action in this matter at this time.

It is therefore ordered, That this case be and it hereby is closed w out prejudice to the right of the Commission to reopen it or to such further action at any time in the future as may be warranted the then existing circumstances.

Mr. William L. Pencke for the Commission.

Mr. Fulton Brylawski, of Washington, D. C., and Mr. Leo Shap of Los Angeles, Calif., for respondent.

EPH BANCROFT & SONS CO., EDDYSTONE MANUFACTURING Co., AND [ BANCROFT & SONS Co., OF PENNSYLVANIA. Complaint, October 11. Order, June 23, 1948. (Docket 4616.)

rge: Misbranding or mislabeling as to qualities, properties, or s by stamping the words "Guaranteed Sun Fast, Tub Fast, and runk" on textiles, or tags or labels attached thereto; in connecwith the manufacturing, bleaching dyeing, printing, finishing, le of cotton, silk and rayon textiles.

ord closed without prejudice by the following order:

s matter coming on to be heard by the Commission upon respondnotion to close this proceeding without prejudice, and the ano such motion, filed by counsel supporting the complaint; and ppearing to the Commission that the practices complained of liscontinued in 1942 and that there is little likelihood that such ces will ever be resumed; and

› Commission being of the opinion that in the circumstances the › interest does not require further corrective action at this time: s ordered, That the case growing out of the complaint herein d it hereby is, closed without prejudice to the right of the Comon, at any time in the future, to reinstate the proceeding and such further action therein as may be warranted by the then ng circumstances.

William L. Pencke for the Commission.

inestvedt & Lechner, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Mr. Nelson B. ll, of Washington, D. C., for respondents.