Robert W. Irwin Co

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

IN THE MATTEI! OF ROllERT W. IRWIN COMPANY COMPLAINT FINDINGS A~D ORDER IN REG.\RD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF imc. 5 O!•' AN ACT OF co"GREss APPROVED SEI'T. 2o, 1914 Docket 4101. Complaint, Feb. 5, 19.)2-Decision, Ju11c 2.~, 194.2 Where a corporation Pllgaged in the manufacture of household furniture, and in the competith·e interstate sale and distribution thereofnepresentcd ·and implied that cerra:n of its furniture was made in its entirety from walnut through use of words "\Vood: \Valnut" and other statements containing the word ''Walnut" in catalogs, price lists, photogravure sheets, invoices, and labels cli!'ltributed among prospective purchasers, and by other means; when in fact it used a walnut wood veneer on a portion of the tlat surface of said furniture awl pecan wood for some of the expcsed structural parts, such ns the Jpgs and framing for cabinet doors; With tendency and capacity to mislead a substantial portion of the purchasing public into the mistaken belief that such furniture was made entirely from walnut, for which it has n marl;:ed preference over that made ft·om a combination of woods such as pewn and walnut, and then•by to induce its purchase of said product, to the substantial injury of competition In commerce :

lield, That such acts and practices, under the circumstances set forth, were all to the prejudice of the puhlic and its competitors, alll constituted unfair methods of competition in commerce, and unfair and dt>ccptive nets and practices therein.

Before lllr. Clyde ill. II adley, trial examiner. Air. B. 0. Wilson for the Commission.

Travis, Merrick, Yarmnn & Riddering, of Grand Rapids, Mich., for respondent.

COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Rohert ,V. In~in Co., a corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated the provisions of 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 complaint, stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent, Robert '\V. Irwin Co., is a corporation, organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan, with its otlice and principal place of business at 23 Summer Avenue, Grand Rapids, l\Iich. The respondent is now, and for more than 2 years last past has been, engaged in the manufacture of household furniture, such as 1492 FEDERAL TRADE . COMMISSION DECISIOKS Complaint 34F. T. C.

dining room, bedroom, and living room furi?-iture nnu in the sale and distribution thereof in commerce between and among the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia. Respondent maintai{1s, and at all times mentioned herein has maintained, a course of trade in said furniture in commerce between and among the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia.

PAR. 2. In the course and conduct of its said business, the respondent is in substantial competition with other corporations, and with partnerships, firms and individuals engaged in the manufacture of household furniture, and in the sale and distribution thereof in said commerce.

PAn. 3. In the course and conduct of its business, and for the purpose of inducing the purchase of its said furniture, the respondent has disseminated, and is now disseminating, false and misleading statements and representations with respect to the kind of wood from which certain of its furniture is made. Such statements and representations are made by means of catalogs, price lists, photogravure sheets, invoices and labels distributed among prospective purchasers and by other means. Among the statements so disseminated by the respondent is the statement ""Wood: 'Walnut" to designate, describe, and refer to certain of its furniture which is not composed wholly of the wood known as walnut, but which is made from a combination of the wood commonly known as walnut and the wood commonly known as pecan. Respondent, in the manufacture of said furniture, so designated and described, uses 'what is commonly kno"\v as a walnut wood veneer for a portion of the flat surface of said furniture but uses the wood commonly known as pecan for all of the exposed structural parts, such as the legs and framing for cabinet doors.

Through the use of the statement "Wood: Walnut" and· others_tatements containing the word "walnut" to designate, describe and refer to said furniture manufactured from a combination of the woods commonly known as walnut and pecan, as aforesaid, respondent represents and implies, and the purchasing public is. thereby led to believe, that said furniture is manufactured in its entirety from the wood commonly known as walnut.

PAR. 4. There is a marked preference on the part o£ a substantial portion of the purchasing public for furniture manufactured wholly from walnut wood over furniture m:umfactured from a combination of woods such as pecan and walnut.

The wood commonly known as pecan is similar in appearance to, and resembles the wood commonly known as walnut when finished ROBERT W. IRWI~ CO. 1403 1491 Findings to be used in furniture with walnut. Under such conditions the greater portion of the public and many dealers in furniture are unable to distinguish the wood commonly known as pecan from the Wood commonlv known as walnut.

PAR. 5. The;e are among the competitors of respondent, as mentioned in paragraph 2 hereof, many who manufacture, sell and distribute the same character of furniture, who do not in any manner misrepresent the material or kind of wood from which such furniture is manufactured or matters pertaining thereto. PAR. 6. The use by the respondent of the false and misleading statements and representations referred to herein has had, and now • has, the tendency and capacity to, and does, mislead and deceive a substantial portion of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that such statements and representations are true, and, because of such erroneous and mistaken belief, a substantial portion of the purchasing public is induced to, and does, purchase respondent's ~aid furniture. As a result thereof, substantial injury has been done, and is being done, by respondent to competition in commerce between, and among the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia.

PAR. 7. The aforesaid acts tmd practices of the respondent, as herein alleged, are all to the prejudice and injury of the public, and of respondent's competitors and constitute unfair methods of com- Petition in commerce and 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 ORDF.R Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, !he Federal Trade Commission, on the 5th day of February 1942, Issued and subsequently served its complaint in this proceeding upon respondent, Robert 1V. Irwin Co., a corporation, charging it with the use of unfair methods of competition and unfair and decl.'ptive acts and practices in commerce in violation of the provisions of said act. On Fl.'bruary 26, 1942, the respondent filed its answer in this Proceeding. Thereafter, at a hearing held in Grand lhpids, 1\Iich., 0~ May 4, 1942, before Clyde l\1. Hadley, an examine.r of the Com- ~lssion theretofot·e duly designated by it, a stipulation was entered tnto whereby it was stipulated and agreed that a statement of facts read into the record may be taken as the facts in this proceeding, and in lnu of testimony in support of the charges stated in the. com- Plaint or in opposition thereto, and that the Commission may proceed ll.pon said statement of facts to make its findings as to the facts and 1494 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIOXS Findings 34F.T.C.

its conclusion based thereon, and issue its order disposing o£ this proceeding without the presentation or arguments or the filing o£ briefs. The re!=:pondent expressly waived the filing of a report upon the evidence by the trial examiner. Thereafter, this proceeding came on for final hearing before the Commission on said complaint, answer, and stipulation as to the facts, and the Commission having duly considereu the same 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, Robert ,V. Irwin Co., is a corporation, organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue o£ the laws of the State of Michigan, with its office and principal place of business at.23 Summer Avenue, Grand Rapids, Mich. The respoi1dent is now, and for more than 2 years last past has been engaged in the manufacture of household furniture, such as dining room, bedroom, and living room :furniture, and in the sale and distribution thereof in commerce between and among the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia. Respondent maintains, and at all times mentioned herein has maintained, a course of trade in said furniture in commerce between and among the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia.

PAR. 2. In the course and conduct of its said business, tM respondent is in substantial competition with other corporations, and with partnerships, firms and individuals engaged in the manufacture of household furniture, and in the sale and distribution thereof in commerce between and among the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia.

PAn. 3. In the course and conduct of its business and for the purpose of inducing the purchase of its furniture, the respondent has disseminated statements and representations with respect to the kind of wood from which certain of its furniture is made. Such statements and representatives have been made by means of catalogs, price lists, photogravure sheets: invoice~, and labels distributed among prospective purchasers, and by other means. Among the statements so disseminat£>d by the respondent was the statenwnt ood: 'Valnut" ""? to designate, describe: and refer to certain of its furniture not composed wholly of the wood known as walnut, but made from a colllbination of the wood commonly known as walnut and wood commonly known as pecan. Respondent, in the manu:fattnre of said furniture ROBERT W. IRWIN CO. 1495 1491 Findings so designated and described, has used what is commonly known as a walnut wood veneer for a portion of the flat surface of said furniture, but has used the wood commonly known as pecan for some of ~he exposed structural parts, such as the legs and framing for cab- Inet doors.

Through the use of the statement "\Vood: \Valnut" and other staternents containing the word "\Valnut" to designate, describe, and refer to saiu furniture manufactured from a combination of the woods commonly known as walnut and pecan, as aforesaid, respondent has rept·esented and implied, and the· purchasing public has been thereby led to believe, that said furniture was manufactured in its entirety from the wood commonly known as walnut.

PAn. 4. There is a marked preference on the part of a substantial :Portion of the purchasing _public for furniture manufactured wholly from walnut wood over furniture manufactured from a combination of woods such as pecan and walnut.

The wood commonly known as pecan is similar in appearance to, and resembles the wood commonly known as walnut when finished to be used in furniture ·with walnut. Under such conditions the greater Portion of the public and many dealers in furniture are unable to distinguish the wood commonly known as pecan from tlw wood comlnon]y known as walnut.

. PAn. 5. There are among the competitors of respondent, as mentt~ned in paragraph 2 hereof, many who manufacture, sell, and dis- · tl'~bute the same character of furniture, who do not in any manner ~tsrepresent the material or kind of wood from which such furniture Is manufactured or matters pertaining thereto . . PAn. 6. The use by the respondent of the statements am.l representaitons referred to herein has had a tendency and capacity to mislead and deceive a substantial portion of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said furniture was, in fact, manufactured in its· entirety from the wood commonly known as walnut; a!1d been use of such erroneous and mistaken belief, a substantial porhon of the purchasing public has been induced to purchase respondent's said furniture. As a result thereof, substantial injury has been done by respondent to competition in commerce between and among the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia. On or about November 1, 1941, respondent discontinued the practice of designating, describing and referring to furniture manufactured from a combination of the woods commonly known as walnut and Pecan as "'\Vood: \Valnut" or "\Valnut" and has since designated, 1496 FEDERALI TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Order 34F. T. C.

described and referred to such furniture as "'Vood: ·walnut and Pecan."

CONCLUSION The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondent, as herein found 1 are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondent's competitors, and constitute unfair methods of competition in commerce and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in comme~ce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. 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, and a stipulation as to the facts made a part of the record herein, which provides, among other things, that without further evidence or other intervening procedure the Commission may issue and serve upon the respondent herein findings as to the facts and conclusion based thereon, and an order disposing of the proceeding, .and the Commission having made its findings as to the facts and conclusion that said respondent has violated the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

It iB ordered, That the respondent, Robert ,V. Irwin Co., a corporation, its officers, representatives, agents, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection 'With the offering for sale, sale and distribution of furniture in commerce, as "commerce'' is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Representing, directly or by implication, that furniture made from a combination of the wood commonly known as walnut and the wood commonly known as pecan is manufactured from the wood common)y known as walnut.

2. Using the words "'Vood: 'Valnut" or the word "'Valnut" to describe, designate, and refer to furniture which is not composed wholly of the wood commonly known as walnut. It is fwrther ordered, That the respondent shall, within 60 days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with this order.

SIERRA CANDY CO., INC. 1497 Complaint·