ORDERS OF DISMISSAL, OR CLOSING WASHINGTON CIVILIAN INSTITUTE. Complaint, November 26, 1943. Order, July 13, 1944. (Docket 5086.) Charge: Misrepresenting business status, advantages or connections and misrepresenting directly or orally by self or representatives as to government and Civil Service Commission connection, jobs and employment, opportunities and refunds, scientific or relevant facts including draft deferment, and terms and conditions generally; and assuming or using misleading trade or corporate name as to correspondence school being an institute; in connection with the sale of courses of study and instruction. Dismissed by the following order: This matter coming on to be heard by the Commission upon the record, and it appearing that the respondent corporation has forfeited its charter and is no longer in existence, and that it has not been in active operation since the issuance of the complaint, and the Commission having duly considered the matter and being now fully advised in the premises. It is ordered, That the complaint herein be, and the same hereby is, dismissed. Mr. William L. Pencke for the Commission. Mr. Hall Hammond, of Baltimore, Md., for Clayton W. Daneker, Receiver. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE-PEET CO. Complaint, February 3, 1944. Order, September 1, 1944. (Docket 5126.) Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly as to composition, qualities, properties or results, competitive products, comparative merits, and scientific or relevant facts, and unique status; and using misleading product name or title; in connection with the manufacture and sale of "Palmolive" soap, Colgate Dental Cream, Colgate Tooth Powder, "Palmolive Lather Cream," "Palmolive Brushless Shave Cream" and "Concentrated Super Suds." Record closed by the following order: This matter coming on for consideration by the Commission upon the record, and it appearing that the respondent, Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Company, has entered into a stipulation as to the facts and an agreement to cease and desist from certain enumerated practices, which stipulation and agreement was, on August 16, 1944, approved by the Commission, and the Commission having duly considered the matter, and being now fully advised in the premises; It is ordered, That the case growing out of the complaint herein issued on February 3, 1944, be, and the same hereby is, closed without prejudice to the right of the Commission, should the facts so warrant to reopen the same and resume proceedings therein in accordance with its regular procedure. 638680m 47-39 569 Mr. Randolph W. Branch for the Commission. Mr. Henry Ward Beer, of New York City, and Davies, Richberg, Beebe, Busick & Richardson, of Washington, D. C., for respondent. ETHEL J. CAYCE TRADING AS REJUVENE MANUFACTURING Co. Complaint, December 2, 1941. Order, September 6, 1944. (Docket 4650.) Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly, and assuming or using misleading trade and brand or product names as to qualities, properties or results of product; in connection with the preparation and sale of a certain cosmetic preparation containing drugs designated "Rejuvene." Dismissed, after answer and trial, by the following order: This matter coming on for consideration by the Commission, and it appearing that the respondent, Ethel J. Cayce, is deceased. It is ordered, That the complaint herein be, and the same hereby is, dismissed. Before Mr. Lewis C. Russell, trial examiner. Mr. Jesse D. Kash for the Commission. Mr. Lloyd Cayne, of Berkeley, Calif., for respondent. STANDARD BUSINESS INSTITUTE, INC. Complaint, September 20, 1943. Order, September 8, 1944. (Docket 5050.) Charge: Assuming or using misleading trade or corporate name as to correspondence school being institute or institution; in connection with the sale of courses of study and instruction of accounting and business administration. Dismissed, after answer and trial, by the following order: This matter coming on to be heard upon the record and it appearing that the respondent corporation has been dissolved and is no longer in existence, and the Commission having duly considered the matter and being now fully advised in the premises. It is ordered, That the complaint herein be and the same hereby is dismissed. Before Mr. Miles J. Furnas and Mr. Andrew B. Duvall, trial examiners. Mr. William L. Pencke for the Commission. Anderson & Roche, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent. JOHN HANLEY. Complaint, February 24, 1942. Original findings and order, August 1, 1944. (Docket 4714.) Order vacating and setting aside, September 22, 1944. Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly as to history and qualities, properties or results of product; in connection with the sale of a device under the trade name of Whirlgas Supercharger. Findings as to the facts and order to cease and desist in this case were vacated and set aside and case reopened for further hearings, by the following order: This matter coming on to be heard by the Commission upon the request of respondent that the findings as to the facts and conclusion and order to cease and desist issued herein on August 1, 1944, be vacated and set aside and the case reopened for the taking of further testimony in support of and in opposition to the allegations of the complaint, and the Com Not published. mission having duly considered said request and the record, and being now fully advised in the premises. It is ordered, That the findings as to the facts and conclusion and order to cease and desist issued herein on August 1, 1944, be, and the same hereby are, vacated and set aside, and that this case be, and the same hereby is, reopened for the taking of further testimony in support of and in opposition to the allegations of the complaint. Before Mr. Edward E. Reardon, Mr. John W. Addison and Mr. J. Earl Cox, trial examiners. Mr. S. Brogdyne Teu, II, Mr. Merle P. Lyon and Mr. Clark Nichols for the Commission. Mr. K. Hanley, of Prospect, Ohio, and Mr. Clyde V. Nutten, of Detroit, Mich., for respondent. I. J. Fox, INC. Complaint, May 7, 1938. Order, September 25, 1944. (Docket 3411.) Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly as to composition, and nature of product and dealer being manufacturer or maker; in connection with the sale of furs and fur products. Dismissed, after answer, by the following order: This matter coming on to be heard by the Commission upon the record, and it appearing that respondent has observed the Trade Practice Rules of the Fur Industry as promulgated June 17, 1938, in accordance with its acceptance filed with the Commission on June 22, 1938, and the Commission having duly considered the matter, and being now fully advised in the premises. It is ordered, That the complaint herein issued on May 7, 1938, be, and the same hereby is, dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the Commission to take such further action as future acts and circumstances may warrant. Mr. Marshall Morgan for the Commission. Hartman, Sheridan & Tekulsky, of New York City, for respondent. L. & C. MAYERS CO., INC. Complaint, December 10, 1941. Order, September 26, 1944. (Docket 4658.) Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly as to dealer being importer and manufacturer and as to list or catalogue prices of products; in connection with the sale of jewelry, silverware, luggage, giftware and other merchandise of like character. Dismissed, after answer, by the following order: This matter coming on for consideration by the Commission upon the application of the respondent for dismissal of the complaint issued herein, and it appearing to the Commission that the respondent has expressed its intention, in writing, to be bound by the Trade Practice Conference Rules promulgated for the Catalog Jewelry and Giftware Industry on December 23, 1943, and has furnished satisfactory evidence of such intention in the form of its latest catalog and proposed corrections thereof, and the Commission having duly considered said application, and the record herein, and being fully advised in the premises. It is ordered, That the complaint herein issued on December 10, 1941, be, and the same hereby is, dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the Commission to institute further proceedings in the matter. Mr. W. T. Chantland and Mr. William M. King for the Commission. Mr. Milton Handler and Myers & Sherwin, of New York City, for respondent. CHELF CHEMICAL Co. Complaint, January 30, 1943.1 Order, September 29, 1944. (Docket 4850.) Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly as to composition, qualities, properties or results, safety, and success, use or standing of product; in connection with the manufacture and sale of a medicinal preparation known and designated variously as "C. C. Compound," "C.C.C.C." and "4 C's." Dismissed by the following order: This matter coming on to be heard by the Commission upon the amended complaint and answer, and it appearing that the respondent corporation has been regularly dissolved by order of the State Corporation Commission of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of its incorporation, and the Commission having duly considered the matter, and being now fully advised in the premises. It is ordered, That the amended complaint herein be, and the same hereby is, dismissed. Mr. Robt. N. McMillen for the Commission. PHILIP GOLDBERG, TRADING AS EDEN CO. Complaint, September 21, 1944. Order, October 23, 1944. (Docket 5220.) Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly as to qualities, properties or results, indorsement, sponsorship of approval of product, and scientific or relevant facts and ailments; in connection with the sale of a vitamin preparation designated "Eden Perles." Dismissed by the following order: This matter coming on to be heard by the Commission upon the record and it appearing that the individual respondent died on or about July 6, 1944, and the Commission having only considered the matter and being now fully advised in the premises. It is ordered that the complaint herein be, and the same hereby is, dismissed. Mr. William L. Pencke for the Commission. Mr. George Landesman, of New York City, for respondent. BENNETT BROTHERS, INC. Complaint, November 21, 1941. Order, November 22, 1944. (Docket 4640.) Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly as to retailer being distributor or wholesaler and wholesale or "list" prices, or prices of product; in connection with the sale of jewelry, silverware, luggage, giftware and other mechandise of like character. Dismissed, after answer, by the following order: This matter coming on for consideration by the Commission upon the motion of the respondent for dismissal of the complaint issued herein, and it appearing to the Commission that the respondent has expressed its intention, in writing, to be bound by the Trade Practice Conference Rules 1 Amended. promulgated for the Catalog Jewelry and Giftware Industry on December 23, 1943, and has furnished satisfactory evidence of such intention in the form of its latest catalog, and the Commission having duly considered said motion and the record herein, and being fully advised in the premises. It is ordered, That the complaint herein issued on November 21, 1941, be, and the same hereby is, dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the Commission to institute further proceedings in the matter. Mr. William T. Chantland and Mr. William M. King for the Commission. Lipper, Shinn & Keeley, of New York City, for respondent. WOODVILLE LIME PRODUCTS Co. Complaint, February 27, 1942. Order, December 9, 1944. (Docket 4717.) Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly and disparaging or misrepresenting competitors or their products as to comparative merits, composition, prices, qualities, properties or results, and scientific or relevant facts, and misrepresenting unique nature of its own product; in connection with the manufacture and sale of a lime and fertilizer product designated "4-All Farmlyme Basic Fertilizer." Dismissed by the following order: This proceeding having been heard by the Federal Trade Commission upon the complaint of the Commission, answer of the respondent, testimony and other evidence taken before a trial examiner of the Commission theretofore duly designated by it, report of the trial examiner upon the evidence, briefs filed in support of the complaint and in opposition thereto, and oral argument of counsel; and the Commission having duly considered the matter and being of the opinion that the testimony and other evidence introduced in support of and in opposition to the allegations of the complaint are not sufficient to support a finding as to the facts. It is ordered, That the complaint herein be, and the same hereby is, dismissed without prejudice to the right of the Commission to institute further proceedings in the matter. Before Mr. Lewis C. Russell, trial examiner. Mr. Jesse D. Kash for the Commission. Davies, Richberg, Beebe, Busick & Richardson, of Washington, D. C., and Marshall, Melhorn, Wall & Block, of Toledo, Ohio, for respondent. FRANK & MEYER NECKWEAR Co. Complaint, October 3, 1944. Order, December 11, 1944. (Docket 5229.) Charge: Advertising falsely or misleadingly, misbranding or mislabeling and furnishing means and instrumentalities of misrepresentation and deception as to composition, quality and nature of manufacture of product; in connection with the manufacture and sale of men's "home spun neckties. Record closed by the following order: 1 This matter coming on to be heard by the Commission upon the record, and it appearing that a stipulation of facts 1 signed by the respondent in this matter has been approved by the Commission, and the Commission having duly considered the matter and being now fully advised in the premises. 1 See infra, p. 629. |