Maurice J. Engel

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

IN '!'HE MATTER OF MAURICE J. ENGEL COMPLAINT, FINDIN~S, AND ORDER IN R~GARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATIOI'I OF SEC, II OF. AN ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED SEPT. 26, 1914 Docket 4490. Complaint, Apr. 19, 1941_.:._Dccision:, Sept. 21, 1912 Where an individual, engaged in couqJetitive Interstate sale and distribution of knife blades used by the fur industry- 1 Represented that his said blades were made of finest-tungsten surgical steed and highly tempered and capable of taking and holding n fine edge an of being resharpened, through such statements in pall:1Phlets and advert!~ ipg broadsides distributed by mail and otherwise as "Tri-Fot·ged" an "Tungsten Surgical Steel"; · The facts being they were made of rolled carbon steel, which in price and quality Is much inferior to tungsten, and were not tri-forged; With effect of ml~lending and deceiving a substantial number of the purcbaS· ing public into the mistaken belief that such representations were true, there· by inducing its purchase of a ljlubstantlal volume of said products, whereby trade was dlverteu unfairly to him from his competitors: . J\ He~d, That sucll acts and practices, under tlle circumstances set forth, were 11 d to the prejudice and injury of the public and competitors, and constituted unfair methods of competi tlon In commerce and unfair and deceptive acts no practices that·ein.

Before Mr. Miles J. Fur-nas, trial examiner. · Mr. S. Brogdyne Teu, II for the Commission. Air. Hendy Bra'oerman, of New York City,.for respondent. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission .Acti and by virtue of tl~e authority vested in it by said act, the Feder~ . Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Maurice J. Enge £ hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated the provisions ~ said act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding bY. 1t in respect thereof would Le in the public interest, heretiy issues lts complaint, stating its charges· in that respect as follows: . PAnAGRAl'H 1. Uespondent, Maurice J. Engel, is an individual, dolll~ business under and.by virtue of the laws of the State of New Yor t with his office and principal 'place of business loc::t,ted at 146 wes Twenty-ninth Street, New York, N. Y. Respondent is engaged in the sale and distribution to dealers located in the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbra of knife blades used bY the fur industry. · · MAURIICE· J. ENGEL 509 sos Complaint PAR. 2. Respondent now maintains and for more than 1 year last P~st has maintained a course o£ trade in said products so sold and distributed by him in commerce between and among the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia. f In the course and conduct of his said business respondent is now and or more than 1 year last past has been engaged in competition with other individuals, partnerships, and corporations engaged in the busi· ness of manufacturing, selling, and disttibuting, and in the business ~i selling and distributing in commerce among and between the va~ious bltates of the United States and in the District of Columbia, knife ades used by the fur industry.

t PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of his business as aforesaid and for t~e Purpose of inducing the purchase of his said knife blades used by e fur industry respondent has published and has circulated among ~rospective customers throughout the various States of the United b states and in the District of Columbia, pamphlets and advertising roadsides, distributed by mail and otherwise, in which his products "'ere described and represented among other things, as being: TRl-FORGED and Tungsten Surgical Steel 1'he aforesaid statements and representations, together with similar :taternents and representations not herein specifically set out, purport 0 be descriptive o£ said respondent's knife blades and of their quality and effectiveness in use by the fur industry. Through the use oi said s~atements respondent represents that his said knife blades are made ~ ?nest tungsten alloy steel and are highly tempered, capable of akmg and holding a fine edge and of being resharpened if necessary. .A. substantial number of the purchasing public believe that knife11 ades for use in the fur industry that have been tri-forged and are ~ade from tungsten steel are superior in many respects for the purpose or Which they were designed, made, and distributed. f P~R. 4. In truth and in fact respondent's knife blades for use in the ll.r Industry are not tri-forged and the respondent's said knife blades are not made of tungsten surgical steel but of rolled carbon steel, a: Product much inferior to tungsten steel both in price and quality. PAR. 5. Each and all of the foregoing false and misleading state- :ent~ and representations made by the respondent as aforesaid in escribing his said knife blades and as hereinabove set out were and ~recalculated to, and have had, and now have a tendency and capacity •0' and do, mislead and deceive a substantial number of the purchas- Ing public into the erroneous and mistaken belie£ that such representations are true. As a result of this erroneous and mistaken belief 50974!)m-43-vol. 35-35 CO~USSION DECISIONS510 FEDE.RAL TRADE Findings 35F. T.c:

so induced, a substantial portion of the purchasing public has pur· chased a substantial volume of the respondent's said products. As a consequence thereof, injury has been done and is now 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. 6. The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondent as herein alleged are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and respon~· ent's competitors and constitute unfair methods of competition 1n 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 Onder . Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Federal Trade Commission,.. on April 19, 1941, issued and subse· quently served its complaint in this proceeding upon the respondent£ Maurice J. Engel, charging him with the use of unfair methods 0 competition in commerce and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce in violation of the provisions of said act. After the issuf ance of said complaint, testimony and other evidence in the form 0 a stipulation as to the facts entered into by and bet,vecn counsel for the Commission and counsel for the respondent, was read into the record in lieu of testimony in support of the charges stated in t?~ complaint or in opposition thereto, before Miles J. Furnas, a tfltld examiner of the Commission theretofore duly designated by it, an 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 upon said complaint, testimony and other evidence, report of the trial examiner upon the evidence, and brief in support~ of the complaint (respondent not having filed brief or requested orll. argument); and the Commission, having duly considered the n1attef and being now fully advised in the premises, finds that this pro· ceeding is in the interest of the public and makes this its findings ns to the facts and its conclusion drawn therefrom. • I FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent, Maurice J. Engel, is an individual, ha"'~ ing his office and principal place of business located at 146 wes Twenty-ninth Street, New York, N.Y. For more than 1 year last pu.str respondent has been engaged in the sale and distribution of kn1£e blades used by the fur industry, and causes said products, when sol~ to be transported from his place of business in the State of New Yot MAURICE. J. ENGEL 511 5os Fmdings ~0 purchasers thereof located in various other States of the United • -ta.tes. Respondent maintains, and at all times mentioned herein has lh.amtained, a course of trade in said products in commerce among and between the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia.

• PAR, 2. In the course and conduct of his said business, respondent 1 ~ ~ow, and for more than 1 year last past has been, engaged in competition with other individuals and with partnerships and corporations engaged in the business of selling and distributing in commerce among and between the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia, knife blades used by the fur industry. PAn. 3. In the course and conduct of his business and for the purpose ?f inducing the purchase of his said knife blades used by the fur Industry, respondent has published and has circulated among prospective customers throughout the various States of the United States, P~Inphlets and advertising broadsides distributed by mail and other- ~lse, in which his products were described and represented among other things, as being:

TRI-FORGED and Tungsten Surgical Steel 'I'through the use of said statements and others similar thereto not ~lecifically set out herein, respondent represented that his said knife t ades were made of finest tungsten surgical steel and were highly :relh.pered and capable of taking and holding a fine edge and of being esharpened if necessary. . hi .A. substantial number of the purchasing public believe that knife f ades for use in the fur industry that have been tri-forged and made :~~ tungsten steel are superior in many respects for the purpo~e for lch they are designed, made, and distributed. th Paa. 4.· In truth and in fact, respondent's knife blades for use in a e fur industry are not tri-forged, and respondent's said knife blades pre not made of tungsten surgical steel but of rolled carbon steel, a product much inferior to tungsten steel, both in price and quality. 1 P~R. 5. The use by the respondent of the foregoing false and mishnding statements and representations in describing said knife blades a as had, and now has, a tendency and capacity to, and does, mislead end deceive a substantial number of the purchasing public into the arroneous and mistaken belief that such representations are true. As ll res.ult of this erroneous and mistaken belief so induced, a substantial 0~tbon of the purchasing public have purchased a substantial volume :respondent's said products. As a consequence thereof, trade has 512 FEDE.RAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Order 35F. T.C.

been diverted unfairly to the respondent from his competitors who are likewise engaged in the sale and distribution of similar products in commerce among and between the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia.

CONCLl]SION The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondent as herein found are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondent's competitors, and constitute Qnfair methods of competition in co~· merce and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce withtn .the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST This proceeding having been heard by the Federal Trade Commi:· sion upon the complaint of the Commission, testimony and other e-vl· dence taken before Miles J. Furnas, a trial examiner of the Commission theretofore duly designated by it, which testimony consisted of 9 stipulation as to the facts entered into by and between counsel for the Commission and counsel for the respondent upon the record in lieu of testimony in support of the complaint and in opposition thereto, :report of the trial examiner upon the evidence, and brief in support of the complaint; and the Commission having made its findings as to the facts and its conclusion that said respondent has violated the pro· visions of the Federal Trade Commission Act. It is O'rdered, That the respondent, Maurice J'. Engel, his representor tives, agents, and employees, directly or through any corporate ~r other. device in connection with the offering for sale, sale, and d1S· tribution o£ knives or knife blades for use by the fur industry, or otbe~ similar products, in commerce as "commerce" is defined in the Fedcr!l Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:· Representing, directly or by implication, that respondent's knife blades made from rolled carbon steel are composed of tungsten surgic!ll steel, or that said knife blades have been tri-forged. 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.

HEATLE-SS PE-RMANENT WAVE CO. ET AL. 513 Complaint