C. N. Dellinger

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

COl\IPLAINT1 FINDINGS AND ORDER IN THE l'tfATTER OF Tile ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 5 OF AN Aai' OF CONGRESS APPROVED SEPTEl'tfBER 26, 1914.

Docket 109(}-June 6, 1924.

SYLLABUS, Where cigars manufactured at Tampa, Fla., had come to be widely and favorably known and frequently referred to as "Tampa cigars"; and thereafter an individual engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigars made elsewhere than at Tampa, Fla., and or other than Havana tobacco: and a tobacco broker engaged in the sale of said cigars: sold said cigars in containers with labels containing the words "Tampa" and "Havana", and advertised the same as " Tampa Ribbon " cigars, with the capacity and tendency to mislead and deceive the purchasing public in reference to the place of manufacture, and composition thereof, and to Induce their purchase in such mistaken belief, and to divert trade from accurately marked and advertised goods:

lield, That such misbranding or mislabeling, and such false and misleading advertising, under the circumstances set forth, constituted unfair methods of competition.

Mr. Morgan J. Doyle for the Commission.

Mr. A. W. Ilcrrrnann, of York, Pa., for respondent C. N. Dellinger. COMPLAINT.1 Acting in the public interest, pursuant to the provisions of an Act of Congress approved September 26, 1914, entitled, "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes," the Federal Trade Commission charges that C. N. Dellinger, trading as C. N. Dellinger & Company, and Jno. l\f. Thomas, an individual trading as Tampa Ribbon Cigar Company, Incire particularly hereinafter described and hereinafter referred to as respondents, have been and are using tmfair methods of competition in commerce in violation of the provisions of Section 5 of said Act, issues this complain and states its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent, C. N. Dellinger, trading as C. N. Dellinger & Company, with his principal office and place of business in the city of Red Lion, State of Penn.sylvania, is now and has been 'As ILlllended, 504 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS. Complaint. 7F.T.C.

for more than one year last past engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling cigars in wholesale or retail quantities in interstate commerce. In the course of his said business respondent was at all times hereinafter mentioned and still is in competition with other individuals, firms, partnerships and corporations similarly engaged in interstate commerce.

PAR. 2. Respondent, Jno. M. Thomas, an individual trading as Tampa Ribbon Cigar Company, with his principal office and place of business in the city of Indianapolis, State of Indiana, is now and has been for more than one year last past engaged as a broker, or for his own account, in the sale of cigars and other tobacco products in wholesale or retail quantities, in interstate commerce. In the course of his business respondent was at all times hereinafter mentioned and still is in competition with other individuals, firms, partnerships and corporations similarly engag~d in interstate commerce. PAn. 3. Respondent, C. ;N. Dellinger, trading as aforesaid, in the course and conduct of his business, for more than one year last past has caused and still does cause the brand or label "Tampa Ribbon" to be placed on containers of cigars manufactured by him in the city 'of Red Lion, State of Pennsylvania, and in conjunction therewith, in numerous places on the outer border facings of said cont..'tiners, in distinct lettering the word "Havana"; when, in truth and in fact, the tobacco from which his said product is manufactured is not grown on the island of Cuba and is not tobacco imported from the said island of Cuba, and is not tobacco generally known and recognized by the purchasing public as Havana tobacco. ran. 4. Respondrnt, J no. l\1. Thomas, trading as aforesaid, in the course and conduct of his business, for more than one year last past, as a means of inducing the public to purchase cigars manufactured by respondent C. N. Dellinger, at Red Lion, Pennsylvania, from tobacco grown in the United States and on the containers of which was placed the brand or label "Tampa Ribbon" in conjunction with the word "Havana" on the outer border facings thereof, caused advertisements to be inserted in trade publications having general circulation through the several States of the United State~<:, in which advertisements said cigars were offered for sale to purchasers and prospective purchasers under the said brand or label ''Tampa Ribbon"; that the use by said respondent of the brand or label "Tampa Ribbon" in conjunction with the word "Havana" in the advertisement and sale of said cigars, is calculated and has the capacity or tendency to mislead and deceive the purchasing public into the belief that said cigars were manufactured in the City or Tampa, State of Florida, or the district in the immediate vicinity C. N. DELLINGER & CO. ET AL. 505 503 Complaint. of said city, and from tobacco grown on or imported from the island of Cuba and generally known and recognized by the purchasing public as Havana tobacco.

PAn. 5. Cigars have for many years been manufactured in the city of Tampa, State of Florida, and in the territory immediately surrounding said city and known as the Tampa district, and such cigars are frequently referred to as Tampa cigars. Such cigars have been and are manufactured principally from tobacco imported from the island of Cuba and generally known and referred to. as Havana tobacco, and cigars made in said city and district of Tampa have acquired a wide and favorable reputation and are generally considered to be cigars of superior quality and workmanship, manufactured from Havana tobacco, which, by reason of similarity of climate and skilled workmanship, are surpassed only by cigars manufactured at Havana, Cuba.

PAn. 6. The cigars manufactured and sold by respondent C. N. Deliinger, trading as aforesaid, and ad vcrtiscd and sold by respondent Jno. 1\I. Thomas, both individually and cooperating each with the other, upon the containers of which said cigars was placed the brand or label "Tampa Hibbon" in conjunction with the word "Havana," which said cigars were not manufactured in the City of Tampa, Florida, or in the territory immediately surrounding said city, known as the Tampa district, and which said tobacco used in the manufacture of said cigars was not grown on or imported from the island of Cuba, was intended to and did signify to the purchasing public that said cigars had, in fact, been manufactured in Tampa, Florida, or in the territory immediately surrounding said city, known as the Tampa district, and from tobacco generally known and recognized by the purchasing public as Havana tobacco. PAn. 7. The words "Tampa Ribbon "· on the containers of said cigars, and the label or legend "Havana" used by said respondent, . C. N. Dellinger, have been and are understood by a substantial part of the purchasing public to mean cigars manufactured in the City of Tampa, State of Florida, or the territory immediately surrounding said city and known as the Tampa district, and to be cigars composed of tobacco grown on or imported from the island of Cuba and generally known and recognized by the purchasing public as Havana tobacco; that the use by respondent of said brands or labels, or similar legends, have the capacity or tendency to mislead and deceive the PUrchasing public into the belief that said ci!!ars so branded. marked and labeled, were, in fact, manufactured in the city of Tampa, or in said Tampa district, and from tobacco grown on or imported from 504 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS. Complaint. 7F.T.C.

for more than one year last past engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling cigars in wholesale or retail quantities in inter- ~tate commerce. In the course of his said business respondent was at all times hereinafter mentioned and still is in competition with other individuals, firms, partnerships and corporations similarly engaged in interstate commerce.

PAR. 2. Respondent, Jno. M. Thomas, an individual trading as Tampa Ribbon Cigar Company, with his principal office and place of business in the city of Indianapolis, State of Indiana, is now and has been for more than one year last past engaged as a broker, or for his own account, in the sale of cigars and other tobacco products in wholesale or retail quantities, in interstate commerce. In the course of his business respondent was at all times hereinafter mentioned and still is in competition with other individuals, firms, partnerships and corporations similarly engag~d in interstate commerce. PAn. 3. Respondent, C. .N. Dellinger, trading as aforesaid, in the course and conduct of his business, for more than one year last past has caused and still does cause the brand or label "Tampa Ribbon" to be placed on containers of cigars manufactured by him in the city 'of Hed Lion, State of Pennsylvania, and in conjunction therewith, in numerous places on the outer border facings of said cont.a.iners, in distinct lettering the word "Havana"; when, in truth and in fact, the tobacco from which his said product is manufactured is not grown on the island of Cuba and is not tobacco imported from the said island of Cuba, and is not tobacco generally known and recognized by the purchasing public as Havana tobacco. PAn. 4. Respondrnt, Jno. ll. Thomas, trading as aforesaid, in the course and conduct of his business, for more than one year last past, as a means of inducing the public to purchase cigars manufactured by respondent C. N. Dellinger, at Red Lion, Pennsylvania, from tobacco grown in the United States and on the containers of which was placed the brand or label "Tampa Ribbon" in conjunc· tion with the word "Havana" on the outer border facings thereof, caused advertisements to be inserted in trade publications having gC'ncrnl circulation through the several Statps of the Unitetl State~"' in which advertisements said ci~ars were offered for sale to pur· chasers and prospective purchasers under the said brand or label ''Tampa nib bon"; that the use by said respondent of the brand or label "Tampa Ribbon" in conjunction with the word "Havana" in the advertisement and sale of said cigars, is calculated and has the capacity or tendency to mislead and Jeceive tho purchasing public into the belief that said ci~ars were manufactured in the City of Tampa, State of Florida, or the district in the immeuiate vicinity C. N, DELLINGER & CO. ET AL, 505 503 Complaint. of said city, and from tobacco grown on or imported from the island of Cuba and generally known and recognized by the purchasing public as Havana tobacco.

PAn. 5. Cigars have for many years been manufactured in the city of Tampa, State of Florida, and in the territory immediately surrounding said city and known as the Tampa district, and such cigars are frequently referred to as Tampa cigars. Such cigars have been and are manufactured principally from tobacco imported from the island of Cuba and generally known and referred to. as Havana tobacco, and cigars made in said city and district of Tampa have acquired a wide and favorable reputation and are generally considered to be cigars of superior quality and workmanship, manufactured from Havana tobacco, which, by reason of similarity of climate and skilled workmanship, are surpassed only by cigars manufactured at Havana, Cuba.

PAn. G. The cigars manufactured and sold by respondent C. N. Deliinger, trading as aforesaid, and advertised and sold by respondent Jno. M. Thomas, Loth individually and cooperating each with the other, upon the containers of which said cigars was placed the brand or label "Tampa HiLbon" in conjunction with the word "ITa vana," which said cigars were not manufactured in the City of Tampa, Florida, or in the territory immediately surrounding said city, known as the Tampa district, and which said tobacco used in the manufacture of said cigars was not grown on or imported from the island of Cuba, was intended to and did signify to the purchasing public that said cigars had, in fact, been manufactured in Tampa, F'Iot·ida, or in the territory immediately surrounding said city, known ns the Tampa district, ancl from tobacco generally known and recognized by the purchasing public as Havana tobacco. PAn. 7. The words "Tampa Ribbon"· on the containers of said cigars, and the label or legend "II a van a" used by said respondent, C. N. Dellinger, have been and are understood by a substantial part of the purchasin~ public to mean cigars manufactured in the City of Tampa, State of Florida, or the territory immediately surrounding said city anrl known as the Tampa district, and to be cigars composed of tobacco grown on or imported from the island of Cuba and generally known and recognized by the purchasing public as Havana tobacco; that the use by respondent of said brands or labels, or similar legends, have the capacity or tendency to mislead and deceive the Purchasing public into the belief that said ci!!ars so branded, rnarketl nn.d labeled, were, in fact, manufactured in the city of Tampa, or in Sutd Tampa district, and from tobacco grown on or imported from 506 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS. Findings. 7F.T.C.

the island of Cuba, and generally known and recognized by the pur~ chasing public as H~;tvana tobacco.

PAR. 8. That the above alleged acts and things done by respondent are all to the prejudice of the public and of respondents' competi~ tors, and constitute unfair methods of competition in commerce within the intent and meaning of an Act of Congress approved Sep~ tember 213, 1914, entitled "An Act to create a Federal Trade Com~ mission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes." REPORT, FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS, AND ORDER. Pursuant to the provisions of an Act of Congress approved September 213, 1914, the Federal Trade Commission issued and served an amended complaint upon the respondents C. N. Dellinger, trading as C. N. Dellinger & Company, and Jno. M. Thomas, trad~ ing as Tampa Ribbon Cigar Company, charging them with the use of unfair methods of competition in commerce in violation of the provisions of said Act.

Respondent Dellinger entered his appearance on the loth day of December, 1023, and respondent Thomas entered his appearance on the 26th day of November, 1923, and thereupon, Respondent Dellinger on the 31st day of January, 1924, and respondent Thomas on the 7th day of January, 1924, made, executed and filed agreed statcmer.ts of facts, in which it was stipulated and agreed by respondents. that the Federal Trade Commission shall take such agreed statements of facts in this case in lieu of testimony and proceed therewith upon such agreed statement of facts to make its findings as to the facts and such order as it may deem proper to enter therein without the introduction of testimony, and the Federal Trade Commission being now fully advised in the premises, makes this its findings as to the facts and conclusion: FINDINGS. AS TO THE FACTS.

PARAGRAPII 1. Respondent C. N. Dellinger is an individual trading as C. N. Dellinger & Company, with his principal office and place of business in the city of Red Lion, Pennsylvania. He has been and still is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling cigars in wholesale quantities and causing said cigars when so manufactured and sold to be transported to, into and through various other States of the United States and the District of Columbia. In the course of his business respondent was, and still is, in competition with other individuals, firms, partnerships and corporations likewise engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of cigars in commerce.

C. N, DELLINGER & CO. ET AL. 507 503 Findings. Respondent Jno. M. Thomas is an individual trading as Tampa Ribbon Cigar Company, with his principal office and place of business in the city of Indianapolis, Indiana. He has been and still is engaged as a broker, and, on his own account, in the sale and distribution of cigars and other tobacco products in wholesale quantities. He causes said cigars and other tobacco products, when so sold by him, to be transported to, into and through various other States of the United States and the District of Columbia. In the course of his business respondent was and still is in competition with other individuals, firms, partnerships and corporations likewise engaged in the sale and distribution of cigars and other tobacco products in commerce.

PAR. 2. Respondents Dellinger and Thomas, in the course of their respective businesses, entered into an understanding and agreement, each with the other, and in which agreement respondent Dellinger- agreed to manufacture, pack, label, and ship certain cigars for and on behalf of respondent Thomas. Respondent Dellinger further agree to manufacture said cigars at Red Lion, Pennsylvania, and to make them from tobacco grown within the United States. Respondent Thomas agreed to furnish the labels and brands to be attached to said cigars and boxes. The cigars manufactured under the agreement between respondents Dellinger and Thomas were made at Red Lion, Pennsylvania, from tobacco grown in the United States, and were not made from Havana Tobacco, i. e., tobacco grown on or imported from the Island of Cuba.

After said cigars were so manufactured, respondent Dellinger, under said agreement, packed them at Red Lion, Pennsylvania, in boxes, and, at the request and direction of, and for and on behalf of, respondent Thomas, attached certain labels to said boxes. The labels so attached to said boxes were furnished by respondent Thomas and contained the words "Tampa" and "Havana." PAR. 3. After said cigars were so manufactured, packed and labeled, respondent Dellinger, at the direction of and on behalf of respondent Thomas, caused said cigars so packed and labeled to be transported from Red Lion, Pennsylvania, to, into and through other States of the United States and into the District of Columbia, consigned to persons to whom said cigars had been sold by respondent Thomas.

PAR. 4. Respondent J no. ].f. Thomas, in the course of his business, caused advertisements to be inserted in trade publications having general circulation throughout the United Stat~s. In said advertisements the cigars manufactured, packed and labeled as aforesaid 508 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS. Order. 7F.T.C.

were offered for sale to purchasers under the name and brand "Tampa Ribbon " cigars.

PAR. 5. For many years cigars have been manufactured in the city of Tampa, Florida, and in the territory immediately surrounding said city and known as the Tampa District; that such cigars are frequently referred to in the trade and among the purchasing public as "Tampa cigars"; that cigars made in said city or district have acquired a wide and favorable reputation and are generally con- "sidered to be cigars of superior quality and workmanship. PAn. G. The word "Tampa," when used on the containers of cigars or in the advertisement thereof, is understood by a substantial part of the purchasing public to mean that such cigars were manufactured in the city of Tampa, Florida, or in the territory immediately surrounding said city.

The word'" II a van a " when used on the containers of cigars or in the advertising thereof is understood by a substantial part of the purchasing public to mean that such cigars were manufactured from tobacco grown on or import£d from the Island of Cuba and generally known as Havana tobacco.

PAR. 7. The words "Tampa" and "Havana," when used by respondents as aforesaid, have the tendency and capacity to mislead and deceive the purchasing public into the belief that said cigars were manufactured in the city of Tampa, Florida, or in the territory immediately surrounding said city, and that said cigars were manufactured from tobacco grown on or imported from the Island of Cuba, and generally known as Havana Tobacco, and to cause persons to purchase said cigars in that belief.

PAn. 8. The use by respondents in thg manner aforesaid of the words "Tampa" and "Havana" has the tendency and capacity to divert trade from accurately marked and accurately advertised goods.

CONCLUSION, The practice of the said respondents, under the conditions and circumstances dcscriLcd in the foregoing findings, are unfair methods of competition in commerce, and constitute a violation of the Act of Congress approved September 2G, 1914, entitled "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes."

OllDER TO CEASE AND DESIST, This proceeding having been hearu by the Federal Trade Commission upon the complaint of the Commission, the answer of the C, N, DELLINGER & CO. ET AL. 509 Order.

respondents, and agreed statements of fact filed herein, and the Commission having made its findings as to the facts and its conclusion that the respondents have violated the provisions of an Act of Congress approved September 26, 1914, entitled, "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes,"

1t is ordered, That the respondents, C. N. Dellinger, trading as C. N. Dellinger & Company, and .Tno. N. Thomas, trading as Tampa Ribbon Cigar Company, cease and desist from- (1) Using the word "Tampa," alone or in combination with any other word or words, in labels, brands, or legends on cigars or on the containers thereof, or in advertisements thereof in connection with the manufacture anu sale or distribution of cigars, if such cigars are in fact not made in the city of Tampa, Florida, or the Tampa District in the State of Florida;

(2) Using the word "Havana," alone or in combination with any other word or worus, in labels, brands or legends on cigars or on the containers thereof, or in advertisements thereof, in connection with the manufacture and sale or distribution of cigars, if such cigars are not composed of tobacco grown in and imported from the Island of Cuba.

It is further ordered, That said respondents shall, within sixty (GO) days after the service upon them of a copy of this oruer, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complieu with the order to cease and Jesist hereinbefore set forth.

510 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS. Syllabus. 7F.T.C.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v.

CHARLES TAGER, TRADING AS AN INDIVIDUAL UNDEH THE NAME OF REGAT SALES COMPANY.

COl\IPLAINT, FINDINGS AND ORDER IN THE JlrA'ITER OF Tile ALLEGED VIOLA- TION OF SECTION 5 OF AN ACT Ol!' CONGRESS APPROVED SEl"lel\:lBEU 26, 1914.

Docket 1025-July 8, 1!>24.

SYLLADUS.

Where a corporation engaged as the Acme Staple Co. in the manufacture of a tacking machine and staples for use therein, and in the sale thereof UJH.ler the trade name "Acme" through diJ!erent concerns in continuously increasing quantities for many years; and thereafter a competitor in the sale of such products, doing business as the Acme Tacking Machine Co., and under other names as best suited his purpose, and dealing in a machine and staples therefor, which was inferior to the genuine Acme machine, and sold at a substantially lower price, (a) Falsely represented to the trade and to customers of his competitors tllat the aforesaid Acme products were no longer being manufactured and soil and that his products were, because of their superior quality taking the place of the former, and that one of the competing concerns through which Acme products had theretofore been sold, had discontinued business, and been absorbed and succeeded by him ;

(b) Falsely represented to customers of said competing concern that sa hi concern was now doing business under the name used by him, and tllat as its agent, and alleged former distl'lbutor of the aforesaid Acme products which be claimed theretofore to have sold to them as one and the same concern wltb competitors, he was taking up the discontinued Acme products and replacing the same with those dealt in by him, and that he bad been instructed so to do by said competing concern, his alleged prlnclrlal : With the result that customers of competitors were induced to dellver up their Acme products to him and to purchase instead those dealt in by him, to their injury and loss, and that of his competitors; (c) Falsely represented to a customer of one of his aforesaid competitors, with whom be had formerly dealt as said competitor's representative, that such competitor had discontinued the said Acme products in favor of those dealt in by him, and would make an allowance upon the former in a transaction involving the turning in of sllid products and the purchase of the latter; with the result that said customer purchased the products dealt In by him In the mistaken belief that he was dealing with the old concern, to his total loss due to such products proving Inefficient and of no value: Held, That such practices, under the circumstances set forth, constituted unfair methods of competition.

Mr. Oharles Melvin Neff for the Commission. Mr. David Least•enworth of New York City for responuent. REGAT SALES CO. 511 510 Complaint. COMPLAINT.

Acting in the public interest pursuant to the provisions of an Act of Congress approved September 26, 1D14, entitled "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and. for other purposes," the Federal Trade Commission charges that Charles Tager, an individual trading under the name of Regat Sales Co., hereinafter referred. to as respondent, has been and is using unfair methods of competition in commerce, in violation of the provisions of Section 5 of said Act, and states its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRArn 1. Responuent, Charles Tager, is an individual doing business and trading under the name of Regat Sales Co. with principal office and place of business at 250 West Fifty-fourth Street, New York City. He is now and at all times hereinafter mentioned has been engaged in the business of selling tacking machines and staples used for tacking labels and addresses on boxes, barrels, and other similar containers,· to stores, factories, and other business establishments located throughout the several States of the United States, and causes said machines and staples, when sold by him, to Le transported from his place of business in the city of New York, State of New York, to, into and through other States of the United States and. in the District of Columbia to the purchasers thereof. In the sale of said products said respondent employs no salesmen but solicits orders himself either directly or through the mail. In the course and conduct of his said business said respondent is in competition with other individuals, partnerships, and corporations engaged in the manufacture and sale of tacking machines and staples including particularly the Markwell Manufacturing Co. and the Dotts Marking Ink Co., both located in New York City, who sell the Acme tacking machines and staples manufactured by the Acme Staple Company, Camden, N. J., to the same class of trade throughout the several States.

PAR. 2. For a number of years said respondent was employed by said Dotts Marking Ink Co. in the sale of Acme tacking machines and staples and in or about the year 1919 said respondent started in business for himself under the name of Port Arthur Tacking Machine Co., selling said Acme tacking machines and staples which he purchased from a broker representing the said Acme Staples Co. in New York City. In or about the year 1920 he changed his trade name to the Rcgat Sales Co. and continued to buy and sell the Acme tacking machines and staples. On or about January 1921, said respondent, as aforesaid, while continuing to buy and sell 512 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS. Complaint. 7F.T.C.

the Acme tacking machines and staples, began the sale of tacking machines and staples manufactured for him by the Hotchkiss Sales Co., Norwalk, Conn., under the name "Regat." The staples of the Acme tacking machine could not and can not be used in the Rcgat tacking machine and likewise the staples of the Regat tacking machine could not and can not be used in the Acme tacking machine. Respondent has since pushed the sale of said Regat tacking machines and staples in preference to the Acme tacking machines and staples. P .AR. 3. Said respondent in the course and conduct of his said business during the two years last past has made and is making numerous false, misleading, and deceptive representations to customers and prospective customrrs with respect to the manufacturer and· distributors of the said Acme tacking machines and staples. Among a number of said false and misleading representations are the following:

(a) Respondent assumed the name of, and represents himself to be, the Acme Tacking Machine Co., as manufacturer and distributor of Acme tacking machines and staples; (b) Respondent represented and now represents that the Acme tacking machines and staples were and are no longer being manufactured and sold, and that the Regat tacking machine and staples were and are taking the place of the Acme because of their superior qualities;

(c) Respondent represented and now represents that the said Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., and the Dotts Marking Ink Co., had gone out of business and were and are no longer selling the said Acme tacking machines and staples; (d) Respondent represented and now represents himself to be the successor of the said Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., and other distributors of Acme tacking machines and staples; (e) That respondent is a representative of the Markwell Man· ufacturing Co., Inc., and its products; that said Sales Company had an improve(! machine, to-wit, the Rcgat tacker, and was putting Regat tackers on the market in place of the Acme tackers, on account of their being a better machine; that most users of the Acme machine were making complaints of those machines and that the Rcgat Sales Company were engaged in calling in all Acme tackers and Acme staples, and exchanging same for Regat tackers and staples;

(f) That the Acme tackers and Acme staples were out of the market or were being taken out of the market, either or both, and that it would be impossible to purchase Acme tackers and Acme staples, either or both, in the future; B.EGAT SALES CO. 513 510 Complaint (g) That if buyers wanted tackers or staples it would be necessary to take the Regat tackers and staples. Whereas the respondent had no authority from the Acme Staple • Co., the manufacturer of the Acme tacker and Acme staples, to represent himself as the Acme Tacking Machine Co. That the Acme Staple Co. was at all times herein mentioned, and now is, the sole manufacturer of said Acme tacking machines and staples; that the said Acme tacking machines and said Acme staples were at all times mentioned herein and now are being manufactured and sold; that the respondent never has represented, and does not now represent, the said Markwell Man~facturing Co., Inc., in any way; that the said .Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., and the said Dotts Marking Ink Co., were, at all the times mentioned herein, and now are, doing business and engaged in the business of selling and distributing Acme tacking machines and Acme staples; that respondent at no time was, and is not now, the successor of the said Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., or the successor of the Dotts Marking Ink Co., or other distributors of the Acme tacking machine and Acme staples; that the Regat Sales Co. at no time has taken over the Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., and its products; that the Acme tacker and Acme staples are not, and were not at any of the times mentioned herein, out of the market or being taken out of the market, either or both, and it is not true that it is impossible, or that it will be impossible in the future, to purchase Acme tackers and Acme staples; and it is not true, if buyers wanted Acme tackers or staples at any of the times mentioned herein, or want them in the future, that it would have been or would now be necessary to purchase Regat tackers and staples.

PAR. 4. Said respondent by resorting to false, misleading, and deceptive representations, including those set forth and described in paragraph 3 hereof, persuaded and induced customers and prospective customers who were using Acme tacking machines and stuples purchased from said Markwell Manufacturing Co., Dotts Marking Ink Co., and other competitors, to discontinue using said Acme tacking machines and staples and ex~change the said Acme tacking machines for the said Regat tacking machines and to purchase large supplies of Regat staples which respondent was then selling, thus preventing the said Markwell Manufacturing Co., Dotts Marking Ink Co., and other competitors from selling staples to their customers to whom Acme tacking machines had been sold and to 'Whom they had been, from time to time, selling Acme staples to be Used in said Acme tacking machines.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISXON'J,514 Findings. 7 F. '1'. C. PAR. 5. The above alleged acts and things done by respondent are opposed to good morals, being characterized by deception and bad faith, and are against public policy because of their dangerous tendency unduly to- hinder competition in the sale of tacking machines and staples to the users thereof throughout the United States, and said alleged acts and things therefore constitute unfair methods of competition in commerce within the intent and meaning of Section 5 of an Act of Congress, entitled "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes," approved September 26, 1914.

REPORT, FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS, AND ORDER. Pursuant to the provisions of an Act of Congress approved September 26, 1914, the Federal Trade Commission issued and served a complaint upon the respondent, Charles Tager, trading under the name of Regat Sales Co. and other names, charging him with the use of unfair methods of competition in commerce in violation of the provisions of said act.

The respondent, Charles Tager, trading as aforesaid, having file<i his answer and entered his appearance by his attorney David Leavenworth, and hearings having been had before George McCorkle, an examiner of the Commission, heretofore duly appointed, and testimony and evidence having been introduced in support of the allegations of the complaint, and testimony and evidence having been introduced by the respondent in support of his defense, and argument having been made in final hearing before the Commission sitting at 'Vashington, District of Columbia, by Charles l\felvin Neff, attorney for the Commission, in support of the complaint, and by David Leavenworth in behalf of the respondent, and the Commission having fully considered the testimony and the evidence, docs now, after due deliberation, make this its findings of fact and conclusion: FINDINGS AS 1'0 Tile FACTS.

PARAGRAPH 1. That the respondent herein has, ever since July 7, 1919, been trading as an individual under the names of Charles Tager, Charles I. Tager, Charles Taiger, and Charles I. Taigcr, and that he has also, as an individual, been trading under the business name of REGAT SALES Company ever since August 19, 1919, and under the business name of Tne Port AnTIIUR CoMl'ANY since August 21, 1919, and under the business name of Ac11rE TACKING l\IACIJINE Com- PANY since June 19, 1922. That the respondent at no time since he REGAT SALES CO. 515 510 Findings. first began their usc ever abandoned the use of any of the foregoing names but, on the contrary, used one or more of them to carry on his business as in his judgment the particular occasion seemed to require. That at no time has he under the above or any other names ever made Acme tacking machines or Acme staples. That the word "REGAT" in the said business name "REGAT SALES Company" and in the phrases "Regat tackers" and "Rcgat staples" to be herein hereafter used is the respondent's surname spelled in the reverse order. That his office and principal place of business and the place from which he shipped the goods he sold under these various names was at one time No. 2010 Lexington Avenue, New York City, but that it is now and for some months before the issuance of the com. plaint herein was, at No. 250 'Vest Fifty-fourth Street, New York City.

PAn. 2. That the respondent is now, and, continuously ever since he began trading under the foregoing names, has been engaged under each of them in the business of selling and distributing tack· ing machines and the staples for use therein, more particularly the Regat tackers and Regat staples, throughout the States and Territories of the United States and the District of Columbia, in competition with the Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., Alexander Botts, an individual trading under the name of the Dotts Marking Ink Co., and with others engaged in selling and distributing the Acme tackers and the Acme staples. That after selling the Regat tackers and staples the respondent caused the same to be trans· ported by freight, express or by parcels post from his place of business in New York City to his customers located in the various States and Territories of the United States and the District of Columbia.

PAR. 3. That tacking machines are used by factories, fruit houses, grocers, hardware dealers, and others to fasten cards, address slips and shipping directions upon commercial containers and by screen door and window makers. They do away with the inconvenience, the loss of time and the accidents attendant upon the use of hammers and tacks. That in both the Acme and the Regat tackers the general principle of operation is the same. Staples are slipped through the rear end of the tacker into a channel parallel to its base. They are then by a spring automatically pushed along a staple bar within the channel and forward into a throat in· the front end of the tacker at right angles to the feeding channel. In this throat and immediately above the staple there is a sleeve through which a plunger, when struck by the hand, descends upon 516 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS. Findings. 7F.T.C.

the staple and drives it through the address card and mto the commercial container.

PAn. 4. That th~ staples made for use in the Acme tackers are individual pieces fabricated from hard steel and until placed into the tackers are held together by a rubber band upon a core. The Regat staples, on the other hand, are stamped out of untempered metal into strips through which runs a small center rib. Each Regat staple is made by the aforesaid plunger when it descends by severing the partly formed staple from this center rib. It is necessary that the plunger cut off every staple used. It soon becomes dull, refuses to cut, the staple bends in the throat, the machines become jammed and clogged and of no further use until repaired. The Regat staples can not be used in the Acme tackers and neither can the Acme staples be used in the Regat tackers. P .AR. 5. That the Acme tacker is superior to the Regat tacker in the material from which it is made, the method of fabrication and in the manner of operation. Its every part, if broken, may be replaced by the factory. The Acme tacker is provided with an anticlogging device which prevents the plunger from returning for another staple after being struck until the one already in the throat has entered the material to be fastened. It can not clog. The Uegat tacker is made from a one-piece magazine casting, the bar being fastened by a few rivets. The parts of the Regat tacker are not interchangeable and can not be replaced. It has no anticlogging device and when it becomes clogged or jammed by a staple the machine's effectiveness is destroyed. ran. 6. That the Acme machine is made to sell at from $3.50 to $5 and the Regat machine at $1.75. The Regat staples sold for less than Acme staples. Regat machines can be made in quantities for 10 cents each. Indeed, save in two instances, the respondent in all of the sales, made in competition with the Acme tackers, gave away the Uegat machines and charged only for the staples, whereas he always charged for the Acme tackers when he sold Acme staples. PAn. 7. That the Acme company is a New Jersey corporation organized in Hill, having its factory and principal office at 1643 Haddon A venue, Camden, N. J. It has since its organization manufactured and sold the Acme and the Acme Sure Shot tacking machines and the staples for use therein. The products of this corporation for many years have been and are now sold throughout the United States, its possessions, and in foreign countries. The word "Acme " is the trade name of the corporation and is an asset of the Acme Staple Co. The whole product of the Acme Staple Co., wherever sold, is known through this trade name. Tho use of the word REGAT SALES CO. 517 510 Findings. "Acme" in the name of "Acme Tacking Machine Co.," one of the business names of the respondent, was never authorized by the Acme Staple Co. The Acme Staple Co. is in no way connected with the Acme Tacking Machine Co.

PAn. 8. That the Acme Staple Co., which manufactures all of the Acme tacking machines, Acme, Sure Shot, etc., and the staples for use therein, has been continually increasing its business from year to year. The increase of machines during the fiscal year l~Hl-1~20 was 450 machines, and 81,7V0,600 staples over the previous year. The increase in the fiscal year 1V20-1V21 was 2,683 machines and 287,307,GOO staples over the former year, while the increase in machines in 1V21-1~22 over the previous year was 1,415, while in staples it was 177,74G,OOO staples. Its increase in business has been such as to oblige it to acquire additional real estate in order to provide for more factories. Architects are now planning new buildings to be erected thereon.

PAn. V. That Alexander Dotts began trading in 1907 as an individual under the name of the "Dotts Marking Ink Co." After a few years he organized a corporation called the "Dotts Marking Ink Co., Inc." In H>20 this corporation went out of existence an<l the said Dotts at once resumed trading as an individual under the former trade name of the Dotts Marking Ink Co. His office and principal place of business has been at all times and now is at No. GS-76 Third Street, Brooklyn, Dorough of Brooklyn, New York City. By means of traveling salesmen and through the mail he sold, and by freight, express and parcel post he distributed Acme tacking machines and staples throughout the United States and Canada, to shippers of all kinds and to screen door and window makers. In such sales he has been since about July 7, 191V, in direct competition with Charles Tager, the respondent, under his various individual and trade names.

PAn. 10. The :Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., is a New York corporation organized in January, 1920, with its office and principal place of business at 176 Franklin Street, New York City. Ever since that date it has been continuously and is now engaged in selling Aeme tackers and Acme staples by traveling salesmen and by the United States mail throughout the United States and the District of Columbia. The tackers and staples so sold are thereafter delivered from New York City by freight, express and by parcel post. In the sale and distribution of said tackers and staples the company is in competition with respondent Tager under his aforesaid various personal and trade names.

8~231"--2G--vol1----34 518 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS. Findings. 7F.T. C.

PAn. 11. That in competition, as aforesaid, with the said Markwell :Manufacturing Co., Inc., the Botts Marking Ink Co., Inc., Alexander Botts, trading as an individual under the trade name of the Botts Marking Ink Co. and with others, the respondent herein has, ever since he began business in July, 1919, stated to the trade and to customers of his said competitors that the said Acme tacking machine and said Acme staples were and are no longer being manufactured and sold, and that the said Regat tackers and said Regat staples were, because of their superior qualities, taking the place of the said Acme tackers and staples. That these statements were at all of said times and when made and are now false and untrue and misleading. That the said Acme tackers and Acme staples were at all of said times and continuously manufactured, offered for sale and sold and are now being made and sold in ever increasing quantities. That the Regat tackers were at no time nor are they now superior to the Acme tackers and that the Regat staples were at no time nor are they now superior to the Acme staples. That on the contrary the said Acme tackers and Acme staples were at all times and are now superior to the said Regat tackers and staples in material, construction, and operation. That because of the above false statements, and believing said statements and relying upon them as true, the following customers of the respondent's competitors were by said statements induced to give up the use of Acme tackers and staples and to buy Uegat tackers and Regat staples from the respondent, all to the injury of the business and financial loss of said competitors, to the said Acme Staple Co. and to the said customers of the said competitors. That some of the aforesaid purchasers are, together with financial losses resulting therefrom, as follows: J,0811. Aaron Carlson, Inc----------------------------------- $200.5G Burns Lumber Co------------------------------------ 70.10 Langeland Mnnutncturlng CO----------.--------------- 100.70 The Thomas Produce CO---------------------------- 140.25 The John Prltzlatr Hardware CO---------------------- 227.28 Field & Start, Inc------------------------------------ 191. !)!) Sheboygan Dairy Products Co------------------------ 138.18 Moore & Galloway Lumber CO------------------------ 206,02 Total------------------------------------------ 1,275.05 PAR. 12. That in competition, as aforesaid, with the said 1\In.rkwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., the Botts Marking Ink Co., Inc., Alexander Botts, trading a~. an individual under the trade name of the Botts Marking Ink Co., and with others, the respondent herein has from time to time ever since he began business in July, 1!>19, to the trade ltEGAT SALES CO. 519 510 Findings. and to customers of his said competitors stated that the said Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., had gone out of business, and were and. are no longer selling the said Acme tackers and staples, that the Regat Sales Co. had absorbed the said Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., and was its successor and had taken over the products of the said Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., and that the Acme tackers and staples were and are no longer being made and sold, and that the Regat tackers and staples were and are taking the place of the Acme tackers and staples.

PAR. 13. That these statements were at all of the said times and when made and are now false and untrue. That the facts were at all of said times and now are that the said Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., was at all of said tfmes and now is engaged in business as aforesaid in selling Acme tackers and staples, that the Regat Sales Co. had at no time absorbed or succeeded the said Markwell :Manufacturing Co., Inc., nor had it at any time taken over the products of the latter company, and that at all of said times the said Acme tackers and staples were being sold and distributed by the said Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., the Botts Marking Ink Co., Inc., and Alexander Dotts, its successor, trading as an individual under the trade name of the Botts Marking Ink Co. PAR. 1-1. That because of the above false statements and believing and relying upon them as true the following customers of the above mentioned competitors of the respondent were by said statements induced to give up the use of said Acme tackers and staples and to buy Regat tackers and staples from the respondent, all to the injury of the business and financial loss to said competitors, to the said Acme Staple Co. and the said customers of the said competitors. These said customers with their respective losses are: 1. Segal Co.-Fraud discovered; DO loss, goods returned. 2. II. C. Bartels-Refused to purchase; DO loss. 3. Curtiss·Yale-IlollaDd Co.-~'rand discovered; no loss,, goods returned. Loss. 4. Langeland Manufacturing Co •• ------------------------------- $100. 72 G. The Thomas Produce Co-------------------------------------- 140. 25 6. Sheboygan Dairy Products Co.------------------------------- 138. 18 7. Burns Lumber CO-------------------------------------------- 70.10 8. Lake Street Sash & Door CO----------------------------------- 46.05 9. Aaron Carlson, Inc ___________________________________________ 200.56 10. The Moore & Galloway Lumber Co___________________________ 206. 02 Total------------------------------------------------------ 901.88 PAn. 15. That in competition, as aforesaid, with the Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., the respondent, in April, 1922, stated in 520 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS. J!'indings. 7F.T.C.

substance to the St. Paul Table Co., St. Paul, Minn., at that time a customer of the Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., that he was the agent and representative of the said Markwell company which had hitherto been selling Acme tackers and staples to the said St. Paul Table Co.; that the said Markwell company was no longer doing business under that name but wus then doing business under the name of the Regat Sales Co.; that the said Markwell company was no longer making the said Acme tackers and staples and that as a representative of the Regat Sales Co. he was taking up all the Acme tackers and staples and selling Regat tackers and staples instead.

PAn. 16. That in April, 1D22, the respondent called upon llrooks Brothers, Inc., of St. Paul, Minn., and stated in substance to said Brooks Brothers, then a customer of said Markwell Manufacturing Co., that the Regat Sales Co., which he was then representing was the former distributor or agent ·of the Acme tackers and staples and was one and the same concern with the said .Markwell Manufacturing Co.; that the Regat Sules Co. hud previously sold llrooks Brothers the Acme tuckers und staples which they then possessed and was now replacing them with Regat tackers and staples. PAR. 17. That believing and relying upon the said statements the said St. Paul Table Co. and the said llrooks Brothers, Inc., were induced by them to deliver up to the said Regat Sales Co. their Acme tackers anu staples and to make purchases of Regat staples in their place amounting respectively to $18.75 und $323.23. That the Regat tackers and staples so purchased proved inefficient anu worthless und could not be used, and that us a result thereof the said purchases were a total loss.

PAR. 18. That in March, 1D22, the responuent stated to A. F. Schwahn & Co., of Eau Claire, Wis., at that time a customer of the saiu Markwell company, that he (Tager) wus a representative of the said Markwell company, that the saiu company hau instructcu him (Tager) to take in or have returned by its customers all Acme tuckers and staples and that they would be replaced by the said .Markwell company by n new device calleu the Regat tackers anu staples which were more efficient. That the saiu Schwahn & Co. did return the said Acme tackers but not to Tager but to the said Markwell Manufacturing Co. instead, in consequence of which no financial loss Ly purchaser was suffered. PAr.. 19. That none of the above statements were true and all were false. The respondent was at no time either under his own or business names an agent or representative of the said Markwell l\fanu· facturing Co., Inc. The said Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., REGAT SALES CO. 521 510 Findings. neYcr at any time did business under the name of the Regat Sales Co., nor did the respondent have at any time any authority from the Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., to take up Acme tackers and staples and to substitute in place therefor Regat tackers and E>taples, neitl1er had the Regat Sales Co. ever sold Acme tackers and staples to the said Brooks Brothers, Inc.; that these statements injured the business of the said Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., and caused it financial loss.

PAn. 20. That from about December 6, 1916, and until July 7, 1919, the said Tager was employed by Alexander Dotts, that is, by the Dotts Marking Ink Co., Inc., as one of its salesmen; that as such he traveled throughout the United States selling for it said Acme tackers and staples and so became acquainted with its customers. That on or about the 7th day of July, 1919, Tager left the employ of the said Dotts Marking Ink Co., Inc., and began business for himself under his various individual and other business names in competition with the Dotts Marking Ink Co., Inc., and with Alexunder Dotts, later doing business as an individual under the name of Botts Marking Ink Co., and with the Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., in the sale and distribution of tackers and staples. P .AR. 21. That after he had left the employ of the said llotts.Marking Ink Co., Inc., and after the said Alexander Dotts had resumed the business of selling Acme tackers and staples under the name of the Botts Marking Ink Co., and after Tager, as an individual under the said name of Regut Sales Co. and his other said names had, in competition with the said Dotts Marking Ink Co., Inc., and others, began selling Regat tackers and staples, and in the fall of 1922 he called, for the purpose of making sales of said Regat tackers and staples, upon Harwood Brothers, Inc., of Richmond, Va., to whom, formerly, as a customer of said Dotts Marking Ink Co., Inc., he had as its said agent and salesman sold Acme tackers and staples. PAR. 22. That at the time said Tager called upon said Harwood Brothers, Inc., he did not disclose to them that he was no longer a salesman for the Dotts Marking Ink Co., Inc., and that he was in business for himself and selling, under the name of Regat Sales Co., Regat tackers and staples in competition with his former employer. He said to a Mr. King, a buyer for Harwood Brothers, Inc., to whom as salesman for the said Dotts :Marking Ink Co., Inc., he had for- Inerly sold Acme tackers and staples, "l\fr. King, we are putting out a new machine (meaning the Regat tacker) to take the place of this old one (meaning the Acme tacker) ; send the two old machines back; or I will send you two machines for thp-m, and send back all of your old staples and I will refund you other staples with the 522 FEDERAL TH..A OE COMMISSION DECISIONS. Findings. 7F. T.C.

understanding that you will buy a certain number of staples for this new machine we are putting out;" that neither said King nor liarwood Brothers, Inc., lrnew said Tager had left the employ of said Dotts Marking Ink Co., Inc., and that he was then a competitor of it, but on the contrary from Tager's conversation at that time, and from previous dealings with him, still believed that he was then representing the said Dotts Marking Ink Co., Inc., and intended to and thought he was contracting with the said Botts Marking Ink Co., Inc., and that had he known that Tager was no longer representing the said Botts Marking Ink Co., Inc., he would not, without further investigation, have dealt with him. In consequence of Tager's nondisclosure and under the belief that he was buying from his former vendor, King, for Harwood Brothers, Inc., made a· purchase of Hegat tackers and staples, for which he paid the sum of $83.12. The said tackers and staples proved to be inefficient and of no value and the sale amounted to a dead loss.

P .AR. 23. That after the sale was made Tager directed Harwood Brothers, Inc., to send back the Acme tackers and staples to Tager's New York City address that by mistake the goods were sent to Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., with whom Harwood Brothers, Inc., had also previously dealt; that after waiting awhile for the said Acme tackers and staples and not receiving them Tager wired to Harwood Brothers, Inc., to send them, to which wire Harwood Brothers, Inc., replied that the goods had by mistake been sent to said Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc.; that thereupon Tager sent the following wire to Harwood Brothers, Inc.: "WIREl MAnKWELL MFG. CO. TO nETUnN YOUn STAPI... ES DON'T TEI... L TIIEU AllOUT TnANSACTION on ADOUT NEW l!ACUINES LET· TEn FOLLOWING."

Then Tager immediately afterwards sent tho following letter to Harwood Brothers, Inc.:

Tile nEGAT SALES CO~IPA.NY, Sole Distributors for the United States and Foreign Countries tor the lU<:lGAT Automatic Tacking Machines and Staples. Foreign branches: Manchester, Eng., Lelpslg, Germany. !!010 LEXINGTON A\'E., New York, N. Y., 10121121.

II.a.awoon nnos., Inc., Rkhmond, Va.

(Attn Mr. W. E. Klng.) GENTLEMEN: We have before us your valued fnvor of Oct. 18th which we have just received nnd have wired you as follows: "Wine UARKWET..L 1\lfg. CO. TO nETURN YOUR STAPLES, DON''!' TELL Tlllm .AllOUT 1.'nANSACTION on AllOUT NEW 1\IACIIINES, LET· TEn FOLLOWING."

We regret that you have made the mistake by sending the old staples back to the .Markwell people, and we woulll ask you plcnse, to ship tbe56 REGAT SALES CO. 523 510 Order, staples back to us by parcel post as soon as you receive them from the Markwell Co.

We trust that you wlll attend to this as soon as possible, at the same time, we wish to ask you not to explain or advise the Markwell Co. in regards to our transaction or anything about our new machines. · Thanking you for past tavors, we remain, Yours very truly, THE REGAT SALES CO.

(Signed) Cn. TAGER.

CONCLUSION.

That the aforesaid nondisclosure, false statements, practices and methods of competition by the respondent have the capacity and the tendency to deceive and in many instances have actually deceived the general public and the competitors of the said respondent to their great inconvenience and to their financial loss, and are unfair methods of competition in interstate commerce and constitute a violation of the provisions of Section 5 of an Act of Congress approved September 26, 1914, entitled "An Act To create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes."

ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST.

This proceeding having been heard by the Federal Trade Commission upon the complaint of the Commission, the answer of the respondent herein, Charles Tager, doing business under the name of tho Regat Sales Co., and various other names, and .the testimony and exhibits submitted, and the Commission after full consideration thereof and due deliberation having made its findings of fact, and its conclusion that the said respondent violated the provisions of Section 5 of an Act of Congress approved September 2G, 1914, entitled "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its Powers and duties, and for other purposes," Now, therefore, it i8 ordered, That the said respondent cease and desist from :

1. Representing that the Acme tacking machines and staples for Use therein are no longer being manufactured. 2. Representing that the Regat tacking machines and staples, or rnachines and staples like them, have been or are now taking the Place of Acme tacking machines and staples, because of alleged superior qualities.

3. Representing that the Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., has g~1e out of business and is no longer engaged in selling the said Acme tacking machines and staples.

524 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS. Oruer. 7F.T.C.

4. Representing that the Botts Marldng Ink Co. has gone out of business and is no longer selling the said Acme tacking machines and. staples. · 5. Representing himself to be the successor of the said Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., or other distributors of the said Acme tacking machines and staples.

6. From stating that he is a representative of the Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., or that he is a representative of the products of the said Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc. 7. From stating that as a representative of the Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., and its products he has an improved tacking machine and that he is putting the same on the market in place of Acme tackers on account of any alleged superiority of said Acme tackers. 8. From representing that the Acme tackers and staples, either or both, are out of the market or are being taken out of the market, either or both.

9. From representing that it is or will be impossible to purchase Acme tackers or Acme staples, either or both. 10. From representing that if buyers want tackers or staples it will be necesary to purchase Regat tackers and Regat staples. 11. From making any other false and untrue statements concerning the products or the business of the Acme Staples Co., or the Markwell Manufacturing Co., Inc., qr the Botts Marking Ink Co., either or any of said companies .

.And it is fur.ther ordered, That the respondent file with the Federal Trade Commission within 30 days from the date of the service of this order upon him his report in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which the respondent has complied with the order to cease and desist hereinbefore set forth. KATZ & DAVIDSON. 525 Complaint.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v.

SAMUEL KATZ AND SAMUEL DAVIDSON DOING BUSI- NESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF KATZ & DAVIDSON.