Order

) The percentage of the total fiber weight of such wool product, usive of ornamentation not exceeding 5 per centum of said total weight, of (1) wool; (2) reprocessed wool; (3) reused wool; each fiber other than wool where said percentage by weight of fiber is 5 per centum or more; and (5) the aggregate of all other

s.

) The maximum percentage of the total weight of such wool; lucts of any nonfibrous loading, filling, or adulterating matter. ) The name of the manufacturer of such wool product; or the ufacturer's registered identification number and the name of a r of such wool product; or the name of one or more persons introng such wool product into commerce, or engaged in the sale, transation, or distribution thereof in commerce, as "commerce" is deI in the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products eling Act of 1939: Provided, That the foregoing provisions coning misbranding shall not be construed to prohibit acts permitted aragraphs (a) and (b) of section 3 of the Wool Products Labeling of 1939: And provided, further, That nothing contained in this r shall be construed as limiting any applicable provisions of said or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

is further ordered, That said respondents and their agents, reptatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other ce, in connection with the purchase, offering for sale, sale or disution of men's coats or any other "wool products," as such products defined in and subject to the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, orthwith cease and desist from causing or participating in the real or mutilation of any stamp, tag, label, or other means of identition, affixed to any such "wool product" pursuant to the provisions he Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, with intent to violate the visions of said act, and which stamp, tag, label, or other means of tification purports to contain all or any part of the information aired by said Act.

is further ordered, That the respondents shall within 60 days after ice upon them of this order file with the Commission a report in ting setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they e complied with this order.

44 F.T.C

Complaint

IN THE MATTER OF

SORBTEX FOUNDATION, INC.

COMPLAINT, FINDINGS, AND ORDER IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATE OF SEC. 5 OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED SEPT. 26, 1914

Docket 4989. Complaint, June 30, 1943-Decision, Apr. 23, 1948

Where a corporation engaged in the manufacture and interstate sale and distria tion of a chemical solution intended for use as a treatment or proces towels, designated "Sorbtex"; in advertising through pamphlets, booke circulars, and other advertising material intended primarily for towel ufacturers, but distributed also to some extent among members of the lic, directly or by implication—

(a) Represented that its said product made towels more absorbent and stantially increased their “dryability," and that towels treated there dried faster;

(b) Represented that the effects produced by the product were permanent that the solution remained in the fabric after repeated launderings; (c) Falsely represented that the product increased the tensile strength of them The facts being that, as disclosed by tests by the Bureau of Standards ari vate laboratories, the ability of the solution to increase the absorptive pacity of towels was limited to effects upon the towel before launders and was in no sense permanent as the solution was not retained i towels after repeated launderings; With tendency and capacity to mislead and deceive a substantial number towel manufacturers and of the purchasing public, and thereby to ind purchase by the former of substantial quantities of the product conta Held, That such acts and practices, under the circumstances set forth, wen to the prejudice of the public and constituted unfair and deceptive and practices in commerce.

In said proceeding, in which as aforesaid noted there was evidence, consist of tests by the Bureau of Standards and also by private laboratorie. the effect that respondent's product would not accomplish the results can therefor, and on the basis of which the Commission found respotat representations erroneous and misleading in so far as they related to terẻ after laundering, the Commission was of the opinion that evidence i record to the contrary of said conclusions, which consisted largely of personal opinions of witnesses unsupported by actual tests, was insufina to meet the evidence based on aforesaid tests.

In said proceeding in which the complaint also charged respondent with representing, directly or by implication, that its said preparation white towels whiter and that the process involved was patented, the COLL sion was of the view that such additional charges were not sustaibe' the record.

Before Mr. Randolph Preston, trial examiner.

Mr. B. G. Wilson for the Commission.

Mr. Ralph Dombrower, of Richmond, Va., for respondent.

Complaint

COMPLAINT

ursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act by virtue of the authority vested in it by said act, the Federal de Commission, having reason to believe that Sorbtex Foundation, a corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated provisions of the said act, and it appearing to the Commission a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public inst, hereby issues its complaint in that respect as follows: ARAGRAPH 1. Respondent, Sorbtex Foundation, Inc., is a corporaorganized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of aws of the State of Virginia, with its offices and principal place usiness located at 210 East Franklin Street, in the city of Richd. State of Virginia.

R. 2. Respondent is now, and for more than 1 year last past has , engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, and disting a solution designated "Sorbtex," represented by respondent a treatment or process for application to towels and other fabrics ake towels more absorbent; to increase the dryability of towels to make them dry faster; and to increase the tensile strength of abric and lengthen its life and make it more durable and to reduce sion without weakening the fibers of the fabric, and for other

oses.

the course and conduct of its business, respondent has caused its solution, when sold, to be shipped and transported from its place siness in the State of Virginia to manufacturers of towels and fabrics located in various other States of the United States. ondent maintains, and at all times mentioned herein has maind, a course of trade in said solution in commerce between and the various States of the United States and in the District lumbia.

e respondent is now, and at all times mentioned herein has been, ged in substantial competition in commerce between and among everal States of the United States and in the District of Columbia, other corporations and with partnerships, firms, and individuals, ged in the sale and distribution of similar products or products and used for the same or similar purposes as those for which ondent represents its said solution. There are among such comors in said commerce many who do not in any manner misreprethe quality and character of their products and who do not make false statements in connection with the sale and distribution of products.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of its said business in commerce as aforesaid, respondent has made and is now making, and has caused and is now causing, the publication of false, misleading, and deceptive statements and representations concerning its said product through circulars, magazines, newspapers, and otherwise, circulated among purchasers and prospective purchasers by various means. Among an typical of the false, misleading, and deceptive statements and repre sentations so made and used by respondent in connection with th offering for sale, and sale, of said product, are the following:

HOW THE SORBTEX PROCESS IMPROVES MODERN TOWELS Sorbtex makes towels immediately usable, without "breaking in.” Sorbtex makes towels absorbent, without weakening the fibers. Redu abrasion, lengthens durability.

* * *

*

*

require

Sorbtex substantially increases the "dryability" of towels. Sorbtex remains in the towels, even after repeated launderings. Sorbtex processed towels dry faster wipe more quickly dry with less effort do not get soaking wet abrasive rubbing * * last longer * makes white towels wh process is permanent * tensile strength increased by 10% Famous patented "drop" test, which dramatically proves the greater dryab of Sorbtex treated towels.

*

PAR. 4. Through the use of the statements and representation hereinabove set forth, and others similar thereto, not herein set-o which purport to be descriptive of the nature and quality of respon ent's said solution Sorbtex, respondent has represented, directly by implication, among other things, that said solution when appli as directed to towels and other fabrics is permanent and remains the fabric after repeated laundering; that it improves towels makes new towels immediately usable without breaking in; that makes towels and other fabrics more absorbent without weakeni the fibers and substantially increases the dryability of towels; th Sorbtex-processed towels do not get soaking wet; that Sorbtex treate towels dry faster with less effort, and wipe more quickly; that Sor tex-treated towels require less abrasive rubbing and last longer; the Sorbtex increases the tensile strength of the fiber and makes whi towels whiter; and that said process is patented.

PAR. 5. The foregoing representations, and other representation not herein set-out, are false and misleading, and constitute false adver tising. In truth and in fact, the said solution when applied as directed to towels and other fabrics, does not increase the tensile strength of the fiber in towels and other fabrics to which it is applied, and does not permanently remain in the fabric after repeated laundering:

Complaint

solution does not improve towels and does not make new towels ediately usable without breaking in, and does not prevent towels 1 getting soaking wet nor substanially increase their dryability or e them dry faster with less effort and wipe more quickly; said tion does not make white towels and other white fabric whiter less effort, and does not make towels and fabrics more absorbent; said process is not patented.

AR. 6. The use by respondent of the foregoing false, deceptive, misleading statements, representations, and advertisements with ect to the quality and character of its aforesaid solution has had now has the capacity and tendency to and does mislead and deceive bstantial portion of the purchasing public into the erroneous and aken belief that such false statements, representations, and advernents are true, and that the respondent's said solution Sorbtex esses the qualities claimed and represented for it in the treatment owels and other fabrics and causes a substantial portion of the hasing public, because of said erroneous and mistaken belief, to hase substantial quantities of respondent's solution and towels other fabrics treated with said process.

he use by the respondent of the foregoing false, deceptive, and eading statements, representations, and advertisements, dissem ed as aforesaid, with respect to the character, quality, and effect espondent's said solution, has had and now has the capacity and ency to and does mislead and deceive a substantial number of ufacturers of towels and other fabrics into the erroneous and aken belief that such false statements, representations, and advernents are true and into contracting with the respondent for the of Sorbtex applied to towels and other fabrics manufactured, sold, distributed by them in preference to the products of competitors he respondent.

s a result trade has been diverted unfairly to the respondent from competitors in said commerce who truthfully advertise the quality character of their products. In consequence thereof injury has 1 and is now being done by respondent to competition in commerce ong and between the various States of the United States and in the trict of Columbia.

AR. 7. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent, as herein ged, are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of rendent's competitors and constitute unfair methods of competition unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce within the ent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.