Berger, Saul & Garfunkel Furs, Inc.

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

Ix THE :\IxrrEH OF BERGER, SAUL & GARFUKKEL FURS, I , ET AL. CONSENT OImER; ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL Thane cO)UnSSIOX AND THE ::'TR PJWD-ccts LABELING ACTS Docket C-95. Complaint, Mar. 14, 1962 Decision, Mar. 14, 1962 Consent order requiring manufacturing furriers in Xew York City to cease violating the Fur 1'rodl1cts Labeling Act by labeling and invoicing artificially colored furs as natural; failng to show on labels and invoices when furs were bleached or dyed: and representing- falsely that they IlfHl a continuing guaranty on file with the Commission.

, 542 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIOK DECISIOKS Complaint 60 F.

COl\fPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, nnd by virtue of thc authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that Berger, SRul & Garfunkel Furs, Inc., a corporation and Alfred Saul, Osias GRrfunkel, and Henry Berger, individually and as offcers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts a.nd the Hules and Hcgulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, and it flppearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof "ould be in the public inteTcst, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follmys: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Berger, Saul & Garfunkel Furs, Inc. , is a. corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the la,yS of the State of New York "ith its offce and principal place of business located at 214 ,Vest 2Dth Street, New York Respondents Alfred Saul, Osias Gnl'lunkel and llenry Berger fire president, vice president, nllcl secretary and treas11lel' : respecting:ly, of t.he said corporate respondent and control dirrct and formulate the acts, practices and policies of the sa d corpol'tte re pollc1ellt. Their offce and principal place of lmsiness is the same as that of the said corpor:lte respondent.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 0, 1052, respondents have been and are no" engaged in the introduction into COlll11erce, and in the manufacture for introduction into commerce, and in the sale, advertising and offering for sale, in commerce, flncl in the transportation and distribution, in COlllnerce, of fur products; and have, manufactured for sale, sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of flu' ,which has been shipped and rece.ived in COll11nerce as the terms "commerce fur:' and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. \R. 3. Certain of said fur products ,were misbranded or othcrwi:3e falsely or deceptively labeled in that said fur products were labeled to show that the fur eontflincc1 therein ,yas natural: when in fact such fur "as bleached, dyed or othenvisc artificially colored, in violation of Section 4 (1) of tbe Fur Products La boling Act. PAR. 4. Certain of saiel fur p:roclllcts were misbranded in that they "ere not labeled as required l1lCler the provisions of Section t (2) of the Fur Produc.sLabeJing Act fl.nd in the mn.nner and form prescribed by the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder. , BERGER, SAUL & GARFUNKEL FURS, INC. , ET AL. 543 541 Decision and Order Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, \were fur products with labels which failed to show that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed 01' otherwise artificially colored when such was the fact.

PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that said fur products \vcre invoiced to show that the fur contained therein was natural when in fact such fur was bleached dyed or otherwise lLrtificiaJly colored, in viohtion of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that they were not invoiced as required lilcler the provisions of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur prodnets, but not limited thereto, were invoices pertaining to sllch fur products which failed to disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

PAR. 7. Respondents furnished false guaranties under Section 10 (b) of the Fur Products Labeling Act with respect to certain of their fur products by falsely representing in writing that they had a continuing guaranty on file with the Federal Trade Commission when said respondents in furnishing such ,bYlulranties had reason to believe that the fur products so falsely guaranteecl would be sold, transported and distributed in commerce, in violation of Rule 48 (c) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Section 10 (b) of said Act.

PAR. 8. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fnr Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. DECISION AND onder The Commission having heretofore determined to issue it.s complaint charging the respondents named in the caption l1ereof with violation of the Federal Trade Comnlission Act and the Fur .Products Labeling Act, and the respondents having been served ,with notice of said determination and with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and , , 544 'FEDERAL TRADE CO:\MISSIQX DECISIQXS Decision and Order 60 F.

The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondents of al1 the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to issue herein, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as set forth in such complaint and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission s rules; and The Commission, having considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the fonn contemplated by said agreement, ma,lms the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Berger, Saul & GarfllnkeJ Furs, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under' and by virtue of the laws of the State of K ew York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 214 IV est 29th Street, Kew York Respondents Alfred Saul, Osias Garfunkel and Henry Berger are offcers of said corporation and their address is the same as that of said corporation.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It i, ordered That respondents Berger, Saul & Garfunkel Furs Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and Alfred Saul, Gsias Garfunkel and 11en1'Y Berger, individually and as offcers of said corporation and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, or manufacture for introduction, into commerce, or the sale advertising or offerlllg for sale, in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce of any fur product; or in connection will the sale, manufacture for sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution, of any fur product which has been made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as "commerce fur': and "fur prodl1et" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. Yrisbranding fur products by:

A. Representing directly or by implication on labels that the fur contained in fur products is natural when such is not the fact. B. Failing' to affx labels to fur products shmving in words and figures plain ly legible all the information required to be disclosed by , , KIBER FARMS, INC., ET AL. 545 541 Complaint each of the subsections of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Representing directly Or by implication on invoices that the fur contained in fur products is natural, when such is not the fact. B. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 3. Furnishing a false guaranty that any fur product is not misbranded, falsely invoiced or falsely advertised when the respondents have reason to believe that such fur product ml1Y be introduced, sold transported or distributed in commerce.

It i8 further or-dered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order. Ix THE fatter OF KIMBER FAIDIS, IJ'C., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER , ETC. IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION O ' THE FEDERAL TRADE COl\DfISSIOX ACT Docket C-.9. Complaint Mar. 11" 19M2-Dee/s.ion, Mar 14, 1962 Consent order requiring the Fremont, Calif., developer of hybrid chickens kno"u as "Killbf rchiks" produced by crossing different white leghorn strains, to cease restricting its dealers or distributors D.S to \vhere or to whom they might sell its IJOultry, fixing their prices, inducing them not to handle other such chickens, and impeding expansion of their business. C03fPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Conuission Act and by yirtnG of the authority ycsted in it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission, ha ving reason to believe that ICimber Farms, Inc. and lCimbel'chiks, Inc. , sometimes hereinafter referred to a.s respondents, have violated the provisions of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 V. , Sec. 45), and it appearing to the Commission that ll. proceeding by it in respect thereto would be in the public intm'est, hereby issues its complaint, stating iis charges in this respect as follo\Y PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent I(jmber Farms, Inc. is a. corporation orga.nized, eX1 ling a.nd doing business under and by virtue of the Complaint 60 I! laws of the State of California with its offce and principal place of business at Fremont, Calif. (P.O. Box 2008). Respondent Kimberchiks, Inc., is also a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California with its offce and principal place of business at Niles, Calif. Respondent IGmberchiks, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of respondent Kimber Farms, Inc.

PAR. 2. Respondent IGmber Farms, Inc., for a number of years has been engaged in the business of producing and selling poult.ry and poult.ry products including ditrercut eross strains or cross breeds of live chicks which are sold, advertised and distributed under the registered trademark or trade name of "IGmberchiks, :Most Kimberchiks are cross strains of the white leghorn type and are bred by respondent to be raised as egg layers although a broiler or meat t.ype bird is available. The eggs laid by such chickens are white as distinguished from brown or tinted rggs.

Kimberchiks are produced by crossing c1i:fl'crent stra.ins or breeds of chicke,ns and arc thus hybrid binls which, though capable of reproducing, cannot reproduce themselves. Respondent Kimber r, arms, Inc. has expended substantial sums of money and gone to considerable pains, and continues so to do, to develop and maintain the parent stock from which the various types of Kimberchiks are derived in an attempt to produce birds which, when mature, will approach opt.imum performance as white egg layers.

Prior to about 1955 all or most sales of respondent Kimber Farms poultry products, including Kimberchiks, were made by that respondent. t.o purchasers in the State of California. In or about 1955, however, respondent formed or caused to be formed respondent JGmberchiks, Inc. Sales, advertising and distribution of Kimberchiks arc currently, and for some years past ha-veheen, effected by respondent Kimber Farms, Inc., through respondent Kimberchiks, Inc. All acts and practices hereinafter attributed to respondent Kimber Farms, Inc. include those performed or followed through or by its ,vhol1y-owned subsidiary respondent Kimberchiks, Inc., even though not specifically so a.alleged.

Direct sales and shipments of Kimberchiks by respondent Kimber Farms, Inc., through I\:imberchiks, Inc. , are and ha.ve been made mostly to purchasers in the State of California. However, respondents achieve a. nationwide distribution of Kimberchiks through franchise a.rrangements with independent hatchery operators in more than 30 states.

KThBER FARMS , INC. , ET AL. 547 545 Complaint Such franchise arrangements are entered into by respondents through Kimberchiks, Inc., with selected hatcheries through "Association Hatchery Agreement(sJ" . Pursuant to such agreements respondents sell to the hatcheries in the form of live chicks the parent stock from which Kimberchiks are produced. The hatcheries raise these parent stock chicks to Inaturity, breed them, and sell the IGmberchik8 resulting from such breeding to poultrymen t.throughout the cmmtry. Ho\"ever, under the terms of the agreements, for each female lCimberchik so sold or held for further growth, each associate hatchery is required to remit a royalty of four cents to respondent Kilnberchiks, Inc.

Hespondents oc,cupy a prominent place in t.their selected field and growth over the last few years has been substantial. Respondents have more than 50 associate hatcheries in more than 30 states and in addition have hatcheries in Greece, Sp 1,in, France, Canada, Chile Peru, Venezuela and Iexico. Hespondents' American franchised hatcheries, exclusive of those in California, sold more than 15 500 000 Kimbcrchiks during 1960 for -which respondents received in excess of $650 000 in royalty payments, whiJe the total figure for such payments from a11 associates both foreign and domestic exceeded $1 390 000. In 1955 respondents' income from poultry and poultry products a.pproximated $2 507 000 while the same figure for 1960 was $4 414 000. Sales of Kimberehiks parent stock to associate hatcheries in the United States increased from about 20 000 in 1955, when the associate hatchery system ivas inaugurated, to more than 824 000 1n1960. During the period from January through September 19(;0, straight run sales of Kimberchiks reached or exceeded 10'; of the total stmight run of light breed chicks hatched in 13 states, exclusive of California, and in five of these states the figure exceeded 20%. The corresponding percentage for the State of California approached or exceeded 25%, while in advertising they have circulated respondents cla.im a sales figure of as high as 38% f the annual hatch of al1light breeds in a state. During 1960 aggregate straight run sales of Kimberchiks were about 52 000 000 which approached or exceeded such sa.les of any other strain of chicken. PAn. 3. RespondentICimber Farms, Ine., in the course and conduct of its business of selling and distributing Kimberchiks through respondent Kimberchiks, Inc. , (a) ships or causes to be shipped the parent stock thereof and, on occasion ICimberchiks themselve, , from the state or states ,yhere such stock and Kimberchiks are produced to various states other than the state of production; (b) maintains a force of field representatives who call upon the various associate hatcheries from time to719-603-64-time; (c) requires periodic reports from such hatcheries as to Complaint 60 F.

eggs hatched and sales of Kimberchiks made together with an accounting for payments due upon female Kimberchiks sold or held for further growth; (d) maintains a constant stream of communication between itself and many associate hatcheries in various states; (e) enters its Kimberchiks in numerous egg laying tests conducted in California and other slates and ships or causes such lCimberchiks to be shipped from California to such other states where such tests are conducted; (f) advertises Kimbcrchiks in trade and industry journals circulated throughout the United States; and (g) sens and distributes from California to associate hatcheries in many other states various aids to be employed in the "dycrtising, promotion and sale of Kimberchiks including brochures, booklets and catalogues for circulation among customers or potential 'Customers therefor. Respondents are now and for a number of years Imve been engaged in "commerce:' as that term is defined in the Federal Trade COllnission Act. PAR. "1- Respondent Kimber Fnrms, Inc., through respondent IGm. berchiks, Inc., in the course and conduct of selling and distributing I\:imberchiks is in competition in commerce with other producers and distributors of the same or similar chickens not parties hereto, including associate hatcheries, some of "which are also enga,ged in such competition with one another and others not parties hereto, except to the extent that actual and potential competition has bee.n hindered lessened, restricted, restrained and eliminated by the acts and practices hereinafter alleged.

PAR. 5. The standard, typical or rcpresentativc "Associate Hatchery Agreemene' by which respondent J(imber Farms, Inc., through respondent lCimberchiks, Inc. , franchises associated hatcheries to breed and sell Kimberchiks is a bilateral contract wherein the parties thereto agree inter alia that:

(a) The hatchery will not sell Kimberchiks in the State of California and respondent IGmberchiks, Inc., will not sell lCimberchiks in the hatchery s territory.

(b) The hatchery will sell Kimberchiks only at prices, including disc-aunts, which have be.en approved in writing by respondent Kimberchiks, Inc.

(c) The hatchery win not establish any branch hatchery more than 20 miles from its present Jocation without wriUen consent of respondent IGmbel'chiks, Inc.

(d) The hatchery will not actively solicit orders for Kimberchiks by such devices as salesmen and dealers in territories assigned to other associate hatcheries.

KIBER FAfu""S, INC., ET AL. 549 545 Complaint There are also incorporated in the standard or representative associate hatchery agreement provisions relating to the limitation of egg strain chicks which a hatchery may sell and the territory wherein it may actively solicit orders for Kimberchiks. The terms and conditions of these provisions of the agreement vary from hatchery to hatchery .

Ali 01' almost all of the hatcheries with which respondents have associated themselves were going concerns at the time such associa tion commenced, and respondents have therefore allowed them a reasonable period within which to dispose of the strain 01' breed of chicken or chickens formerly handled, and have raised no serious objection to an associate handling and selling chickens other than light breed white egg strain types. However, most of the hatcheries now associated with respondents have agreed to sell only Kimberchiks. The sales territory which is allocated to an associate hatchery for active solicitation varies with the section of the country involved. some instances no specific restriction is imposed, aside from the covenant not to sell in California, or the territory assigned 11lay encompass very substantial areas such as an entire state or states, generally with the understanding that as more hatcheries are franchised in the particular section or tho country involved some division or territory may be necessary. Ginder other circunlstances a hatchery s exclusive area for active sales solicitation may be narrowly spelled out in terms of portions of a state, states Or counties, the boundaries of which may be delineated by highways and state and county lines. PAll. 6. Respondent Kimber Farms, Inc., through respondent Kimberchiks, Inc., has for a number of years last past engaged in fixing the prices, including discount terms, at which Kimberchiks may be sold by its associate hatcheries. This is accomplished by respondents by periodically transmitting to such hatcheries lists specifying prices to be charged for Kimberchiks, and discounts available for submitting orders and payment in advance and cwnulative quantity purchases within a given time.

On occasion respondent ICimberchiks, Inc., has functioned as a focal point for price fixing by associate hatcheries in pa.rticular sections of the country by urging them to submit proposed prices for IGmbel'chiks to it, and thereafter issuing a list of prices based in large part upon a composite of, Or compromise between, the prices suggested 1.0 it by the hatcheries located in the area or areas involved. Respondent JGlnberchiks, Inc., has from time-to-time urged its associate hatcheries to exchange price lists and pricing information with one another and to compromise their differences over sales territories. Hcspondent 550 FEDERAL TRADE GOMMISSIOK DEC1STONS Complaint 60 F.

IGmberchiks, Inc., has consistently preached, advised and advocated against competition, particularly price competition, among and bet,veen its associate hatcheries.

Respondent Kimbel' FRrms, Inc., through Kimberchiks, Inc., has taken measures to enforce the provisions of associate hatchery agreements. Among the measures Botaken were (a) requiring a hatchery to show cause why its franchise should not be tCTlninated for soliciting business outside of its allocatee) sales territory and at Jess than the approved price; (b) serving written notice upon a hatch cry that it and another hatchery were to make no salcsw whatsoever across a specified territorial line as of a certain date, and that in the event such COllditions were unsatisfactory to the hatchery the letter whereby such notice wa,s given should also serve to alert the hatchery that its contract \voulcl be cancelled not later than a date certain; (c) tCl'ninating an agreement :with an associate hatchery when it became kno:wn to respondent that the former was handling and promoting or planning to hanclle and promote white leghorn type chickens other than )ein1berchiks; and (d) refusing to allo:w onc associate hatchery to make sales of Kimberchiks or maintain a dealer therefor in the territory assigned to another for active solicitation of orders thereof. PAIL 7. Thc capacity, tendency and effect of respondents' acts and practices as hereinbefore alleged, the franchise agreements with associate hatcheries, and the steps taken by respondents to maintain and enforce the terms and conditions of such agreements, either individually or collectively, has been, is now, or may be, to substantially lessen, restrain, restrict and prevent competition, including price competition, between and among respondents and their associate hatcheries between and alllong such associate hatcherics or some of them, and between ancl among respondents, their associate hatcheries and others not parties hereto, in the sale and distribution of Kimberchiks, other chickens or both, particularly in the following respects: 1. Respondents have eliminated competition in the sale of Kimberchiks between themselves and their associate hatcheries by agreeing with such hatcheries not to sell Kimberchiks in their allocated sales territories and exacting agreements from them that they wil not so sell in California.

2. Respondents have eliminated or severely restricted competition between and among their associate hatcheries or SOlTIe of them and between and among such hatcheries and other vendors of chickens, by establjshing, fixing and maintajning the prices at which sales of Kimberchiks by such hatcheries may be made in various sections of the country, and such prices have been so established, fixed and main- KIMBER FARMS , INC. ) ET AL. 551 54, Decision and Order tained beyond the exception provided by the McGuire Amendment to Section 5 (a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. 3. Respondents have eliminated or severely restricted competition between and among their associate hatcheries, or some of them, by allocating and assigning exclusive sales territories to such hat heries and refusing to permit other associate hatcheries to solicit sales of J(imberchiks in such territories or maintain dealers therein. 4. R.respondents as a condition to franchising their associate hatcheries, or some of them, have required that they agree to ultimately refrain from handling any light breed white egg producing chickens except Kimberchiks, which has the tendency and capacity to foreclose producers, distributors and vendors of other chickens of such breed and egg producing charncteristics who are or may be in competition with respondents in the production, distribution and sale thereof from the faci1itics afforded by and through such associate hatcheries "\which have in the aggregate a substantial capacity for the production distribution and sale of such chickens.

5. Respondents have restricted, restrained, eliminated or impeded competition in that they have required an associate hatchery to show cause why its franchise should not be cancelled for selling IGmberchiks outside of its allocated sales territory and at less than prices approve.c by respondents; have delivered an ultimatum in writing to fl hat.chery t.hat it was to make no sales whatsoever across pertinent territorial lines and that in the event such conditions were unsatisfactory and unacceptable said ultimatum should serve as notice of franchise cancellation no later than a date specified; and have terminated an agreement 'With a hatchery upon learning that the latter was promoting and handling or preparing to promote and handle white leghorn type chickens other than Kimberchiks. PAH. 8. Each and all of respondents' acts and practices, the terms and conditions of their franchise agreements with associate. hatcherie. , and the steps they ha.ve taken to effect compliance with sllch terms and conditions, as hereinbefore alleged in paragraphs five, six and seven, constitutes an unfair act and practice or unfair method of competition in violation of Section 5 of the Federa.l Trade Commission Act.

DECTSIO:: A XD OUDEH The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the captain hereof 'With violation of the Federal Track Commission Ad, and the respondents ha ving been served TIith notice of said dete,rmination and with a copy 552 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIQ!S DECISIQ,,S Decision and Order 60 F.

of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and The respondents and counsel for the COImnission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to issue herein, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as set forth in such complaint, n,nd waivers and provisions as required by the Commission rules; and The Commission, having considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent, Kimber Farms, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of thc State of California with its offce and principal place of business at Fremont Calif. (P.O. Box 2008).

Respondent, IGmberchiks, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State or California with its offce and principal place of business at Niles, Calif. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It i8 ordered That respondent, Kimber Farms, Inc., a corporation and respondent Kimberchiks, Inc., a corporation, their offcers, directors, re:presentatives or employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the ojJering for sale, sale or distribution of poultry and poultry products in commerce, as "commerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Putting into effect, mainta.ining or enforcing any merchandising or distribution plan or policy under which contra.cts, agreements or understandings a.rc entered into with dealers in or distributors of such poultry and poultry products or with dealers in or distributors of poultry and poultry products which are or may be obtained by breeding parent stock poultry sold, leased or othenvise made available by or through respondents which have the purpose or effect of: (a) Limiting, allocating or restricting the geographical area in which, or the persons to whom, any dealer or distributor may sell or solicit sales of such poultry and poultry products; or SELLS E ERPRISES' , INC. , ET AL. 553 545 Syllabus (b) Fixing, establishing or maintaining the prices at which such poultry and poultry products may be sold by any dealers therein or distributors thereof; or (c) Requiring or inducing, or attempting so to do, any dealer or distributor of such poultry and poultry products to refmin from selling or soliciting sales of such poultry and poultry products in any specified geographical area or to or from any specified persons. (a) Requiring any dealer or distributor of such poultry and poultry products to refrain from hand1lillg dealing in or distributing any other poultry and poultry products; or (e) Impeding, restricting or limiting in any way, or attempting so to do, the expansion of the business of any dealer in or distributor of such poultry and poultry products.

2. Entering into, continuing' or enforcing, or attempting to enforce, any contract, agreement or understanding with any dealer in or distributor of their poultry products, or the poultry and poultry products which are or may be obtained by breeding poultry sold leased or otherwise made availa,ble by or through respondents, for the purpose or \with the effect of establishing or maintaining any merchandising or distribution plan or policy prohibited by paragraph 1 of this order.

It is further ordered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in "Titing setting forth in detail the manner