Redding, J. Merrell

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

IN THE MATI'ER OF J. MERRELL REDDING, DOING BUSINESS AS ETHYL GAS COMPANY COMPLAINT (SYNOPF>IS), FINDINGS, AND ORDER IN RE'GARD 'IO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF !'>EC. ti OF' AN ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED SEPT. 26, 1914 Docket 1778. Complaint, Mar. 81, 1980-Deoision, May 6, 1930 Where a corporation engaged under the name Ethyl Gasollne Corporation of New York in the sale of an antiknock fluid or motor fuel In Interstate commerce and in the use of the term " Ethyl " In connection therewith; and thereafter an Individual engaged in the sale of a fluid for treating motor fuel, (a) Designated, advertised, and labeled the aforesaid fluid as "Ethyl Gas" and "Ethyl Gas Anti-Knock" and falsely represented the same as an effective antiknock motor fuel, when mixed with gasoline; (b) Falsely represented that said Ethyl gas was similar to and gave the same results as the aforesaid Ethyl fluid of said Ethyl GaRollne Corporation of New York and that be was an agent thereof or connected therewith; (c) Furnished customers with signs for gasoline pumps similar to those used by and furnished to dealers in the product of the aforesaid Ethyl Gasoline Corporation of New York, so as to mislead and deceive the consuming public Into believing his product to be that of the aforesaid corporation; (d) So colored his product that when mixed with gasoline the resulting mixture was similar In coloring to and undlstinguishable from the product of the aforesaid Ethyl Gasoline Corporation, with the result of deceiving and misleading the purchasing public into believing its said product to be that of the aforesaid corporation; and (e) Simulated advertising Information and Instruction publications, and booklets of competitor;

With the capacity and tendency to cause and with the effect of causing retail distributors and the consuming public to purchase Its said product as and for one with antiknock properties when used as a motor fuel, and to confuse said product with that of Its several competitors; Held, That such practices, under the conditions and circumstances set forth, wel'1! to the prejudice of the public and competitors and constituted unfair methods of competition.

Mr.llenry 0. Lank for the Commission.

SYNOPSis oF Complaint Reciting its action in the public interest, pursuant to the provisions o£ the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Commission charged respondent, an individual engaged in the sale of a fluid for treating motor fuel, alleged to give such motor fuel antiknock properties, with misrepresenting qualities, nature and identity vf product, mis- ETHYL GAS CO. 33 82 Complaint branding or mislabeling same in said respects, misrepresenting business status or affiliations, and simulating advertisements and products of competitors, and passing off, in violation of the provisions of section 5 of such act, prohibiting the use of unfair methods of competition in interstate commerce.

Respondent, as charged, engaged in the sale of a fluid as above set forth, falsely and fraudulently represented and branded his said fluid as "Ethyl Gas" and "Ethyl Gas Anti-Knock," notwithstanding the fact that said fluid was not that product containing Ethyl, well known to the purchasing public for its antiknock properties nnd sold in interstate commerce by the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation of New York, and was not an antiknock fluid and did not, mixed with gasoline, produce antiknock gasoline, and falsely and fraudulently represented or caused to be represented his said product as (1) a treater of gasoline which, mixed therein, improved the antiknock properties thereof, and produced in effect antiknock motor fuel, (2) similar to the "Ethyl Fluid" of the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation of New York, sold and distributed throughout the several States to improve antiknock properties of motor fuels, and (3) similar to and giving the same results as Ethyl gasoline motor fuel, containing the aforesaid Ethyl fluid, and (4) the Ethyl Gas Co., trade name employed by him, as agent of or connected with aforesaid Ethyl Gasoline Corporation of New York. Respondent further, in connection with the sale and distribution of his said product has simulated (1) signs of distributors or sellers of motor fuels, and furnished said simulating signs to distributors or sellers for use on their gasoline pumps, (2) coloring of motor fuels known to the public as having antiknock properties, and (3) advertisements, including booklets and other literature prepared and distributed by sellers or distributors of motor fuels, known to the public as having antiknock properties.

Said alleged acts and practices, as charged, have the capacity and tendency to and do cause retail distributors and ultimate purchasers of motor fuels to purchase respondent's said product as and for a product giving motor fuel with which is mixed an antiknock property, and to purchase motor fuels or gasoline containing respondent's said product as and for antiknock motor fuels or gasoline sold by other distributors or sellers; all to the prejudice of the public and of respondent's competitors and distributors, and sellers of motor fuels, and constituting unfair method of competition in commerce within the intent and meaning of section 5.

Upon the foregoing complaint the Commission made the following 65042"--31-VOL 14--3 Findings 14F. T. 0. REPORT, FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS, AND ORDER Pursuant to the provisions of an act of Congress approved Sep~ tember 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 issued and served a complaint upon the said respondent, J. Merrell Redding, an individual doing business under the name and style of Ethyl Gas Co., charging him with the use of unfair methods of competition in commerce in violation of the provisions of said act.

The said respondent, having entered his appearance and filed his answer herein, in accordance with Rule III (2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, expressly refraining from contesting said proceedings and consenting that this Commission may make, enter, and serve upon him an order to cease and desist from the violations of the law alleged in the complaint.

Pursuant to the said mentioned rule of the Commission and being fully ad vised in the premises, the Commission now makes its findings as to the facts and its conclusion drawn therefrom: FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS PARAGRAPH 1. The said respondent, J. Merrell Redding, is an individual with his place of business in the city of Dallas, State of Texas. The said respondent for more than two years last past has been doing business under the name and style of Ethyl Gas Co. The said respondent during all of said time has been engaged in the sale of a fluid for treating motor fuel alleged to give said motor fuel antiknock properties. The said respondent has caused said fluid when so sold to be transporte<:l in interstate commerce from the city of Dallas in the State of Texas, to the purchasers thereof at various points 'in States of the United States other than the State of Texas. In the course and conduct of his business said respondent has been in competition with other individuals, partnerships, and corporations enaaged in the sale of fluids for treating motor fuel so as to give saw motor fuel antiknock properties.

par. 2. The said respondent for more than two years last past has been selling in interstate commerce the aforementioned fluid and variously describing the same as "Ethyl Gas" and " Ethyl Gas Anti-Knock," and advertising the same as a motor fuel having antiknock properties when mixed with gasoline when in fact the said fluid when mixed with gasoline does not produce a motor fuel having antiknock properties.

ETHYL GAS CO. 35 82 Findings At the time or times the said respondent, J. Merrell Redding, adopted the trade names" Ethyl Gas" and" Ethyl Gas Anti-Knock," the Ethyl'Gasoline Corporation of New York was and had been using the term " Ethyl " in the sale in interstate commerce of an antiknock fluid or motor fuel.

PAR. 3. The said respondent in the sale of his product has made numerous statements and representations to the effect: (a) That Ethyl Gas is a treater of gasoline and when mixed with or dissolved in gasoline improved the antiknock properties of the gasoline and produced an effective antiknock motor fuel. (b) That Ethyl Gas was similar to Ethyl Fluid, a product of the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation of New York.

(c) That Ethyl Gas was similar to and gave the same results as Ethyl gasoline.

(d) That the Ethyl Gas Co. was an agent of or connected with the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation of New York. All of the above-mentioned statements and representations were in fact false, deceptive, and untrue.

PAR. 4. Said respondent for more than two years last past has branded his product:

(a) Ethyl Gas, when in fact the mixture or compound did not contain Ethyl and was not in fact the product of the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation, which product of the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation was well known to the purchasing public and was being and had been sold in interstate commerce by the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation of New York.

(b) Ethyl Gas Anti-Knock, when in fact the product of the respondent was not an effective antiknock fluid or motor fuel and did not when mixed with gasoline produce an antiknock gasoline. PAR. 5. In the sale and distribution of his product the said respondent has simulated the advertising of his competitors located in the various States of the United States and has sold his product as and for the product of the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation of New York and numerous and various other distributors and dealers located throughout the United States, the particular acts in this connection being- ( a) The furnishing by said respondent to his customers of signs to be placed on gasoline pumps similar to the signs used by and furnished to the dealers in the product of the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation of New York so as to mislead and deceive the consuming public into the belief that the said respondent's product was a product of the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation of New Yo~k. Order 14F.T.a (b} Said respondent has so colored his product that when mixed with gasoline the ultimate product is similar in coloring and can not be distinguished from the product of the said Ethyl Gasoline Corporation of New York, thereby deceiving and misleading the purchasing public into the belief that said respondent's product is the product of the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation of New York. (a) Said respondent has simulated the advertising, including booklets and other literature prepared, distributed, and circulated by competitors.

PAR. 6. The acts and practices of the said respondent as set forth above have the capacity and tendency to and do cause retail distributors and the consuming public to purchase respondent's product in the belief that said product has antiknock properties when mixed with gasoline or motor fuels and used as a motor fuel. The acts and practices of respondent as set forth above have the capacity and tendency to and ·do cause retail distributors and the consuming public to confuse respondent's said product with the product of respondent's several competitors. CONCLUSION .

The practices of said respondent, J. Merrell Redding, under the conditions and circumstances described in the foregoing findings, are to the prejudice of the public and to respondent's competitors and are unfair methods of competition in interstate commerce and constitute a violation 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 and upon the consent of the respondent, J. Merrell Redding, that the Commission may make, enter, and serve upon him an order to cease and desist from the violations of law as alleged in said complaint, as fully appears from the record herein; and the Commission having made its findings as to the facts with the conclusion that the respondent, J. Merrell Redding, has violated the provisions of the 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,"

It is now ordered, That the respondent, J. Merrell Redding, india vidually and doing business as Ethyl Gas Co., his agents, servants, and employees, in connection with the advertising, offering for sale, ETHYL GAS CO. 37 32 Order or sale in interstate commerce of a product variously described and designated as " Ethyl Gas " and " Ethyl Gas Anti-Knock" for use in treating motor fuel and gasoline, do cease and desist: (1) From using the word "Ethyl" alone or in combination or connection with any other word or words.

(2) From using the word "Anti-Knock" or any other word or words or representation of like import unless and until respondent's said product actually contains properties which when mixed with motor fuel or gasoline give to said motor fuel or gasoline antiknock properties.

(3) From selling, leasing, or otherwise furnishing to dealers, signs for gasoline pumps similar in color, dress or general appearance to the signs for gasoline pumps furnished dealers by distributors or sellers of motor fuel or gasoline.

( 4) From simulating, copying, or imitating in dress or general a,appearance the signs, placards, circulars, booklets, or other advertising or literature of distributors or sellers of motor fuel or gasoline. It ia further' ordered, That the respondent, J. Merrell Redding, individually and doing business as Ethyl Gas Co., shall within 60 days after the service upon him of a copy of this order file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he has complied with the order to cease and desist hereinbefore set forth.

Syllabus 14F.T.C.