in the form of contact advertisements used in connection with the sale of his machines and confections.

MISREPRESENTATION AS TO POULTRY REMEDY

George H. Lee Co., Omaha, Nebr., was directed to cease and desist from representing that its product "Lee's Gizzard Capsules" will remove pinworms and tapeworms from poultry, unless, in regard to the tapeworms, it be represented with equal conspicuousness that this product merely shears off the strobolae or chain of segments, leaving the head of the worm capable of growing new segments attached to the intestines of the fowl.

MISLEADING USE OF THE WORD "DIRIGOLD" TO DESCRIBE TABLEWARE

The American Dirigold Corporation, Kokomo, Ind.; Dirigold Metals Corporation, Barrington, Ill.; and Dirigold Distributors, Inc., Chicago. Orders to cease and desist were issued in these three cases involving the use of the word "Dirigold” to designate and describe flatware and hollow ware made from an alloy of base metals and containing no gold. The ware involved had the appearance of gold, and it was found that use of the word "Dirigold" to describe it was misleading in that it implied and served as a representation that the ware so designated contained gold. Two of the respondents were manufacturers of ware so described, while the third was a retail dealer handling such ware.

ORDERS UNDER THE CLAYTON ACT

(As amended by the Robinson-Patman Act)8

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Biddle Purchasing Co., New York.

Oliver Brothers, Inc., New York.-These three organizations were served separately and at different times with orders to cease and desist from certain practices held to be in violation of the brokerage section of the Robinson-Patman Act. In each instance the respondents petitioned the United States Circuit Court of Appeals to review and set aside the Commission's order. Details of the orders and of the court proceedings may be found under Cases in the Federal Courts at pp. 84, 77, and 88, respectively.

Christmas Club, New York, in the sale of "systems" consisting of pass-books, account books, advertising literature and other paraphernalia for use by banks in their conduct of Christmas Clubs, was ordered to cease and desist from discriminating in price. The Commission found that the respondent company entered into con

'Further references to Robinson-Patman cases may be found on pp. 8, 49, 77, 83, 84, and 88.

tracts to furnish banks with savings systems and to accept in payment a percentage of the deposits made in a bank's club. It was further found that all of the contracts did not provide for payment on the same percentage basis, the result being that the respondent company discriminated in price between different purchasers of systems of like grade and quality.

Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., Pittsburgh, and others.-Respondents in this case were: Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., Pittsburgh; LibbeyOwens-Ford Glass Co., Toledo, Ohio; American Window Glass Co., Pittsburgh; Fourco Glass Co., Clarksburg, W. Va.; Harding Glass Co., Fort Smith, Ark.; Adamston Flat Glass Co., Clarksburg, W. Va.; Rolland Glass Co., Clarksburg, W. Va.; Scohy Sheet Glass Co., Sistersville, W. Va.; Blackford Window Glass Co., Vincennes, Ind.; The Window Glass Manufacturers Association, New York; The National Glass Distributors Association, Chicago, and others. An order to cease and desist restrained them from combining or conspiring among themselves or with other respondents to engage in, or pursuant to any such combination or conspiracy, directly or indirectly, from engaging in any of a number of acts set forth in the order which were found to hinder, obstruct, or prevent jobbers, wholesalers, or distributors, from freely purchasing or obtaining window glass.

The order further required the respondent manufacturers to cease and desist from discriminating in price between carload lot purchasers of window glass, to whom shipment was made direct from the factory, by charging some of the purchasers any amount more than the price charged other of such purchasers for window glass of the same grade and quality and of comparable strength, size, and kinds. The foregoing was not intended to prevent the jobbing warehouses of a manufacturer, whose functions parallel those of an independent jobber, from selling carload lots on a brokerage basis at prices commonly obtained by such independent jobbers.

The order further directed the members of the National Glass Distributors Association to cease and desist from: (1) Receiving or accepting any discriminatory price or the benefit of such discrimination as prohibited by the aforementioned part of the order; and (2) inducing or attempting to induce any manufacturer of window glass to discriminate in price in the manner so prohibited.

The respondents were held to have violated both the Federal Trade Commission and Robinson-Patman Antidiscrimination Acts.

Golf Ball Manufacturers' Association and others.-An order to cease and desist was issued against the Golf Ball Manufacturers' Association, members thereof, and the Professional Golfers Association of America and members thereof restraining them from unlawfully

entering into and effectuating any agreement or combination among themselves to fix and maintain prices for golf balls.

The order further directed the Professional Golfers Association and its members to cease and desist from requiring, coercing, or persuading the respondent, Golf Ball Manufacturers' Association and its members, or any other manufacturer, corporation, firm, or individual, to enter into any agreement or contract providing for or resulting in a difference in price in favor of members of the "PGA," through the payment of any monies, or anything of value for the privilege of causing the letters "PGA" or any other insigna or mark of like character to be imprinted on golf balls manufactured and sold by any of the respondent manufacturers or any other manufacturer, corporation, partnership, firm, or individual, directly or indirectly to the respondent "PGA" or any of its respondent members.

The order further provided, among other things, that the respondent, Golf Ball Manufacturers' Association and members, cease and desist from:

(1) Granting or giving the following unlawful discriminations in price, namely, the payment of anything of value to respondent, Professional Golfers Association, either as a royalty for the privilege of causing the letters "PGA" or any other insignia, brand, or mark to be imprinted on golf balls sold to members of the respondent, Professional Golfers Association or otherwise, which payment, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, is to be passed along or used for the benefit of the members of said Professional Golfers Association; or the making of any payment directly to such members in lieu of any such payment to the Professional Golfers Association.

The order further restrained the Professional Golfers Association and its members from:

(1) Inducing or receiving any discrimination in price or allowance in connection with the purchase of golf balls in interstate commerce which the manufacturers of golf balls were prohibited from giving. The respondents were held to have violated the Federal Trade Commission and Robinson-Patman Acts.

Legume inoculant manufacturers.-Four corporations, Agricultural Laboratories, Inc., Columbus, Ohio; Hansen Inoculator Company, Inc., Urbana, Ill.; The Urbana Laboratories, and others, Urbana, Ill., and The Nitragin Company, Inc., Milwaukee, were individually directed to cease and desist from discriminating in price between purchasers competitively engaged one with the other in the resale of legume inoculant, which is bacteria grown for the inoculation of seeds of leguminous plants, principally alfalfa, sweet clover seeds, soy beans, and peas.

H. C. Brill Co., Inc., Newark, N. J., a manufacturer and distributor of a preparation for the making of home made ice cream, was

directed to cease and desist from granting or paying or agreeing to grant or pay sums amounting to discriminations in price in the form of cumulative discounts except where such discount makes only due allowance for differences in cost which have been achieved with respect to individual sales made to a particular buyer over a period of time and which differences in cost were not reflected in the price at which the buyer purchased.

TYPES OF UNFAIR COMPETITION

PRACTICES CONDEMNED IN ORDERS TO CEASE AND DESIST

The following list illustrates unfair methods of competition condemned by the Commission from time to time in its orders to cease and desist. This list is not limited to orders issued during the last fiscal year. It does not include specific practices outlawed by the Clayton Act and committed to the Commission's jurisdiction, namely, various forms of price discrimination, exclusive and tying dealing arrangements, competitive stock acquisition, and certain kinds of competitive interlocking directorates.

1. The use of false or misleading advertising, calculated to mislead and deceive the purchasing public to their damage and to the injury of competitors.

2. Misbranding of fabrics and other commodities respecting the materials or ingredients of which they are composed, their quality, purity, origin, source, attributes or properties, history, or nature of manufacture, and selling them under such names and circumstances that the purchaser would be misled in these respects.

3. Bribing buyers or other employees of customers and prospective customers, without the latters' knowledge or consent, to secure or hold patronage.

4. Procuring the business or trade secrets of competitors by espionage, or bribing the employees, or by similar means.

5. Inducing employees of competitors to violate their contracts and enticing away employees of competitors in such numbers or under such circumstances as to hamper or embarrass the competitors in the conduct of their business.

6. Making false and disparaging statements respecting competitors' products, their value, safety, etc., and competitors' business, financial credit, etc., in some cases under the guise of ostensibly disinterested and specially informed sources or through purported scientific but in fact misleading demonstrations or tests.

7. Widespread threats to the trade of suits for patent infringement arising from the sale of alleged infringing products of competitors, such threats not being made in good faith but for the purpose intimidating the trade and hindering or stifling competition, and

of

claiming and asserting, without justification, exclusive rights in public names of unpatented products.

8. Trade boycotts or combinations of traders to prevent certain wholesale or retail dealers or certain classes of such dealers from procuring goods at the same terms accorded to the boycotters or conspirators, or to coerce the trade policy of their competitors or of manufacturers from whom they buy.

9. Passing off goods or articles for well and favorably known. products of competitors through appropriation or simulation of such competitors' trade names, labels, dress of goods, etc., with the capacity and tendency unfairly to divert trade from the competitors, and/or with the effect of so doing to their prejudice and injury and that of the public.

10. Selling rebuilt, second-hand, renovated, or old products or articles made from used or second-hand materials as and for new. 11. Paying excessive prices for supplies for the purpose of buying up same and hampering or eliminating competition.

12. Using concealed subsidiaries, ostensibly independent, to obtain competitive business otherwise unavailable, and making use of false and misleading representations, schemes, and practices to secure representatives and make contacts.

13. Using merchandising schemes based on a lot or chance.

14. Cooperative schemes and practices for compelling wholesalers and retailers to maintain resale prices fixed by a manufacturer or distributor for resale of his product.9

15. Combinations or agreements of competitors to enhance prices, maintain prices, bring about substantial uniformity in prices or to divide territory or business, to cut off competitors' sources of supply, or to close markets to competitors, or otherwise restrain or hinder free and fair competition.

16. Various schemes to create the impression in the mind of the prospective customer that he or she is being offered an opportunity to make a purchase under unusually favorable conditions when such is not the case, with capacity and tendency to mislead and deceive many of the purchasing public into buying products involved in such erroneous belief, and/or with the effect so to do, to the injury and prejudice of the public and of competitors, such schemes including—

(a) Sales plans in which the seller's usual price is falsely represented as a special reduced price made available on some pretext for a limited time or to a limited class only, or involving false claim of special terms, equipment, or other privileges or advantages.

The Miller-Tydings Act and "Fair-Trade" laws are referred to at pp. 6 and 46, text of that act, see p. 164.

For