Gould, Benjamin

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

IN THE MATTER OF BENJAMIN GOULD, TRADING AS PICCADILLY HOSIERY MILLS AND PICCADILLY HOSIERY COl\IP ANY <::COMPLAINT, FINDINGS, AND ORDER Di REGARD TO Tile ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 5 OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED SEPT. 26, 1914 Docket 8'17 4. Complaint, Apr. 26, 1939-Decision, Sept. 5, 1940 'Vhere an individual engag('u in sale and di!;tributlon of ho~iny, in commerce among the Tarlous States and In the District of Columbia- Set forth and made use of trade name including words "Hosiery Mill::~," In certain letterheads, invoices, and other printed matter distributed to customers and prospective customers, and represented, through use of word ''Mills" as aforesalu, that he was manufacturer of hosiery sold by him, and owned or operated mill where said product was made, notwithstanding fact be was uot such a manufacturer, for dealing with whom directly there is preference on part of substantial portion of purchasing and consuming public and dealers as securing, among other things, lower prices, elimination of middleman's profits, superior products, and other advantages, and at no time owned, operated, or controlled a mill whl'rein his said proclnct, which he obtained from others, was made;

'With tendency and capacity to ml!dead and decdve substnntin,l portion of purchasing public into mistaken and erroneous belief that he was manufacturer of such hosiery and, by reason that·eof, into purchase of substantial quantity of his said product :

Held, That such acts and prll.ctlcl's, under the cit·curustances set forth, wet·e all to the prejudice and Injury of the public and con~tltnt<'d unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce.

Before Mr. John lV. Addi.~on, trial examiner. Air. L. E. Creel, Jr. for the Commission.

/1/r, Charles P. Bloome, of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent. Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by sQ.id act, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that Benjamin Gould, trading as Piccadilly Hosiery Mills and Piccadilly Hosiery Co., hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated the provisions of the said act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its <"om plaint, stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent, Benjamin Gould, is an individual doing business under the trade names of Piccadilly Hosiery Mills and Picca- <lilly Hosiery Co., with his principal office and place of business lo- <"ated at 1019-1021 Arch Street, in the city of Phihulelphin, State of PICCADILLY HOSIERY MILLS, ETC. 847 846 Complaint Pennsylvania. Respondent is now, and for some time last past has. been engaged in the business of selling and distributing hosiery in commerce between and among various States of the United States 11.nd in the District of Columbia. Respondent causes, and has caused, said hosiery, when sold, to be shipped from his aforesaid place of business in the State of Pennsylvania, to purchasers thereof at their respective points of location in various States of the United States, other than the State of Pe1U1sylvania, and in the District of Columbia. PAR. 2. In the course and conduct of his business, as aforesaid, re- • spondent, in soliciting the sale of and in selling his hosiery as above described, has caused letterheads, invoices, and other printed matter relative to said hosiery to be distributed in commerce, as commerce~ is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, to customers and prospective customers located in States other than Pennsylvania. Certain of said printed matter includes the following statement: Piccadilly Hosiery l\IIlls 1019-1021 Arch Street PhiladPiph!a, Pennsylvania The use by respondent of the word ".Mills" in his trade name and in the manner above described serves as a representation by respondent that he is the manufacturer of the hosiery which he sells and distributes.

PAR. 3. In truth and in fact, respondent does not own and operate or control the plant or factory wherein the hosiery which he sells and distributes is manufactured but respondent has filled and now fills orders for such articles of merchandise with hosiery which is made or manufactured in a plant or factory which he does not own, operate,. or control.

PAR. 4. There is now, antl has been during all the times mentioned herein, a preference on the part of a substantial portion of the purchasing and consuming public and dealers for dealing directly with a manufacturer of hosiery in the belief that more reliance can be placed on a manufacturer with reference to carrying out contracts, and that lower prices, elimination of middlemen's profits, superior prodnctst or other advantages can thereby be obtained. PAR. 5. The use by the respondent of the word "l\Iills," as hereinabove alleged, has had, and now has, the tendency and capacity tot and does, mislead and deceive purchasers and prospecti,·e purchasers into the mistaken and erroneous belief that the respondent is the manufacturer of said hosiery and into the purchase of substantial quantities of respon1lent's hosiery because of such mistaken and erroneous belief.

Findings 31F. T. C.

PAR. 6. The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondent, as herein alleged, are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. REPORT, FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS, AND ORDER Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Federal Trade Commission on April 26, 1939, issued and subsequently served its complaint in this proceeding upon respondent Benjamin Gould, an individual trading as Piccadilly Hosiery Mills and as Piccadilly Hosiery Co., charging him with the use of unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce in violation of the provisions of said act. After the issuance of said complaint and the filing of respondent's answer thereto, testimony and other evidence in support of the allegations of the complaint were introduced by L. E. Creel, Jr., attorney for the Commission, and in opposition to the allegations of the complaint by Charles P. Bloome, attorney in :fact for respondent, before John ,V, Addison, trial examiner of the Commission by it theretofore duly designated, and said testimony and other evidence were duly recorded and filed in the office of the Commission. Thereafter, the proceeding regularly came on for final hearing before the Commission on the said complaint, the answer thereto, testimony and other evidence, brief in support of the complaint, respondent not having filed brief, and on oral argument by counsel; and the Commission having duly considered the matter and being now fully advised in the premises, finds that this proceeding is in the interest of the public and makes this its findings as to the facts and its conclusion drawn therefrom.

FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent, Benjamin Gould, is an individual doing business under the trade name of Piccadilly Hosiery Co., with his principal office and place of business located at 1019-1021 Arch Street in the city of Philadelphia, Pa. From January 12, 1938 until April 5, 1938, respondent operated his business under the trade name of Piccadilly Hosiery Mills. On that date he abandoned the use of the trade name Piccadilly Hosiery Mills and substituted therefor the name Piccadilly Hosiery Co.

PAR. 2. Respondent at all times since he began business in January 1938 has been engaged in the business of selling and distributing hosiery in commerce between and among various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia. Respondent causes and has caused such hosiery, when sold, to be shipped from his place of busi- PICCADILLY HOSIERY MILLS, ETC. 849 -840 Conclusion ness in the State o{ Pennsylvania to purchasers thereof located at their respective points of location in various States of the United States other than the State of Pennsylvania and in the District of Columbia.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of his business as aforesaid, respondent in soliciting the sale of and selling hosiery as above described has caused letterheads, invoices, and other printed matter relative to such hosiery to be distributed to customers and prospective customers. Certain of such printed matter used from January 12, 1938 • until April5, 1938, included the following statement: Piccadilly Hosiery Mills, 1019--1021 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania PAR. 4. The Commission finds that the use by the respondent of the word "Mills" in his trade name as aforesaid constituted a representation that respondent was the manufacturer of the hosiery sold by him; that respondent owned or operated a mill where said hosiery was made.

Such representation by the respondent was false and misleading. The respondent has not at any time manufactured any of the hosiery sold by him. He has not at any time owned, operated, or controlled a mill wherein his said hosiery was made. Respondent obtains, and at all times mentioned herein has obtained his hosiery from other parties.

PAR. 5. The Commission further finds that there is now and has been during all the times mentioned herein a preference on the part of a substantial portion of the purchasing and consuming public and dealers for dealing directly with the manufacturer of hosiery, such preference being due in part to a belief that thereby lower prices, elimination of middleman's profits, superior products, and other advantages can be obtained.

PAR. 6. The use by respondent of said false and misleading representation had the tendency and capacity to mislead and deceive a substantial portion of the purchasing public into the mistaken and erroneous belief that respondent was the manufacturer of said hosiery and into the purchase of substantial quantities of respondent's hosiery because of such mistaken and erroneous belief. CONCLUSION The acts and practices of respondent as found herein are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Order 31 F. '1'. C. ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST This proceeding having been heard by the Federal Trade Com· mission on the complaint of the Commission, the answer of respondent, testimony and other evidence taken before John ,V, Addison, an examiner of the Commission, theretofore duly designated by it, in support of the allegations of said complaint and in opposition thereto, brief filed herein by counsel for the Commission and oral arguments by L. E. Creel, Jr., counsel for the Commission, and by Charles P. Bloome1 on behalf of the respondent, and the Commission having made its findings as to the facts and its conclusion that said respondent has violated the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act. It i8 ordered, That the respondent, Benjamin Gould, individually and trading as Piccadilly Hosiery Mills and as Piccadilly Hosiery Co., or trading under any other name or names, his representatives, agents, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale, and distribution of hosiery in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission: Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: Using the word "mill'' or "mills" as a part of his trade name, or otherwise representing that he is a manufacturer. It is further ordered, That the respondent shall within 60 days after service upon him 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 this order.

ROBERT A. JOHNSTON CO. 851 Syllabus