Superior Insulating Tape Company

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

IN THE M:.WTER OF SUPERIOR INSULATING TAPE COl\IPANY ET AL. CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE CO1\DIISSION ll.

Docket C-206. Complaint, Aug. 15, 1962-Decision, Aug. 15, 1962 Consent order requiring St. Louis manufacturers to cease representing falsely that their rolls of "SI" brand plastic tape-sold in rolls ranging from 7~ inch wide and 10 feet long to % inch wide and 60 feet long--contained more tape than was the fact through mounting the tape on a cardboard spool part of which was of the same color and appearance as the tape while the center was of a contrasting color, usually orange. CO:MPLAINT 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 Superior Insulating TRpe Company, a corporation, and J. A. Schwe:ig a.nd Julius S. Selnveich, individually and as officers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have 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. R,respondent Superior Insulating Tape Company is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and virtue of the laws of the State of :Missouri, 'ivith its principal office and place of business located at 3100 Lambdin Avenue, in the city of St. Louis, State of ~lissouri.

Respondents J. A. Schweig and Julius S. Schweieh are officers of the corporate respondent. They formulate, direct and control the flcts and pra.ctices of the corporate respondent, including the acts a.nd practices hereinafter set forth. Their business address is the same as that of the corporate respondent.

PAR. 2. Respondents are now, and for some time last past have been, engaged in the manufacturing, advertising, offering for sa.le, sale and distribution of various kinds of tape to distributors and wholesalers who sell to retailers for resale to the public. PAR. 3. In the course and eonduet of their business, respondents now cause, and for some time last past have caused, their said products when sold, to be shipped from their place of business in the State of ~lissouri to purchasers thereof located in various other states of the SUPERIOR INSULATING TAPE CO. ET AL. 417 416 Decision and Order United States, and maintain, and at all times mentioned herein have maintained, a substantial course of trade in said products in commerce as "COn1111erce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act. m. 4. One type of tape offered for sale and sold by respondents as aforesaid, is their SI brand plastic tape. Said tape is sold in 112 rolls of various sizes ranging from inch wide and 10 feet long to % inch ,,~ide and 60 feet long.

The aforesaid tape is mounted on or rolled around a cardboard core or spool part of \which is the same color and of the same appearance as the tape wound around it while the balance or center of the core or spool is of a contrasting color, usually orange. PAR. 5. By means of the aforesaid rolls of tape; in the manner constructed and colored as aforesaid, the respondents have represented and no'" represent, contrary to the facts, that their said rolls of tape contain more tape than they actually contain. "~R. 6. By the aforesaid practices, respondents place in the hands of others a means and instrumentality by and through which they may mislead the public as to the amount of tape contained in respondents said product.

PAR. 7. In the conduct of their business, and at all times mentioned herein, respondents have been in snbstantjal competition, in commerce with corporations, firms and individuals engaged in the sale of various types of tape of the same general kind and nature as that sold by responded ts.

PAI~. 8. The use by respondents of the aforesaid false, misleading and deceptive representations and practices has had, and now has the capacity and tendency to mislead members of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that the aforesaid product contains more tape per roll than is the fact and into the purchase of substantial quantities of respondents' said tape by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief.

PAR. 9. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, \were, and are, all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents' competitors and constituted, and now constitute unfair methods of competition in commerce Hnd unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DEl'lSTOX AXD ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission )J..ct, and the respondents having been 418 FEDERAL TRADE COMivlISSION DECISIONS Decision and Order 61 F.

served ,,-ith notice of said determination and ",-ith a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together \with a proposed form of order; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission 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 settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the la,\" has been violated as set forth in such complaint and ,vaivers and provisions as required by the Commission s rules: nnd The Commission: having considered the agreement, hereby nccepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement niakes the followin!2: urisclictional i1ndin.2 nnd enters the follm,,-inf1:) order: L. 1. Respondent, Superior Insubting Ttlpe Comparl)', is a corporation organized: existing and doing business under and by virtue of the l~n\"s of the State of j\Iissouri ,with its ofiice and principal place of business , Statelocated at 3100 Lambdin Ayenue, in the city of St. Louis :1\Iissouri.

Respondents J. A. Scll"weig and Julius S. Sehweich are officers of said corporation, and their address is the snme 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 is onlered That respondents, Superior Insulating Tape Company, a corporation, and its officers, and J. A. Schweig and Julius Sclnye.ich, individually and as officers of said corporation and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, or sale, of 81 brand plastic tnpe, or nny other product, in commerce, as commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Representing, directly or indirectly, by means of packaging: or in any other manner, that its products are larger in size, such as length, ,yidth, area, 'Teight, thickness, or quantity, or in any other manner, than is the actual fact.

. 2. Engaging in any practice or plan which ,Till provide retailers of their merchandise with the means of misrepresenting its Inerchandise as set forth in Paragraph 1 above. /, &;

MISSION FRUIT & VEGETABLE CO. 419 416 Complaint It is f1I1'thel' onle1' 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. IN THE ~L~ TTER J. P ARICER LA~IPERT DOING BUSINESS AS ~IISSION FRUIT & VEGETABLE CO~ipany CONSENT OlWER, ETC. , IN REG~\RD TO TI-lE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 (c) OF THE CLAYTON .ACT Docket C-2 0 Complaint, A./lg. 21, 1962-Decisio-n, AI/g. , 1963 Consent order requiring ::\Iission, Tex., packers of cHrus fruit to cease violating Section 2 (c) of the Clayton .-\.et. by pn~-ing a commission 01' discount to brokers and other direct bu;\ers purchasing for their o\yn accounts for resale.

CO3IPL.:'dnt The Federal Trade Commission, hfl ving reason to believe thflt the party respondent named in the efLption hereof, and hereinafter more partieubrly described, has been and is nmv violating the provisions of subsection (c) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended (U. Title 15, Sec. 13), hereby issues its complaint, stating its cl~argues with respect thereto as follo.ws :

PARAGRAPH 1. Hespolldent J. Parker Lampert is an individual doing business as :Mission Fruit Vegetable Company with his office and principal place of business located at :Mission, Texas, with mailing address as Post Office Box 793, :Mission, Texas. PAR. 2. Respondent is now and for the past several years has been engaged in the business of packing, selling and distributing eitrus fruit, such as oranges, tangerines and grapefruit, all of which are sometimes referred to as eitrus fruit or fruit products. Respondent sells and distributes his products directly, and in many instances through brokers, to buyers located in various sections of the United States. 1Yhen brokers are utilized in making sales, respondent pays said brokers for their services a brokerage or commission, usually at the rate of ;) cents per carton or 10 cents per 1:% bushel box or equiva)ent. Respondent' s annual volume of business in the sale and distribution citrus fruit is substantial.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of his business over the past several years, respondent has sold and distributed, and is no\" selling and Decision and Order 61 F.

distributing, citrus fruit in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the aforesaid Clayton Act, as amended, to buyers located in the several States of the United States other than the State of Texas in which respondent is located. Respondent transports, or causes such citrus fruit, when sold, to be transported from his place of business or packing plant in the State of Texas, or from other places within said state, to such buyers or to the buyers' customers located in various other states of the United States. Thus there has been at all times mentioned herein, a continuous course of trade in commerce in said citrus fruit across state lines between said respondent and the respective buyers thereof.

PAR. 4. In the course and conduct of his business, as aforesaid, respondent has been and is now making substantial sales of citrus fruit to some, but not all, of his brokers and direct buyers purchasing for their own account for resale, and on a large number of these sales respondent paid, granted or allowed, and is now paying granting or allo"wing to these brokers and other direct buyers on their purchases a commission, brokerage, or other compensation, or an allowance or discount in lieu thereof, in connection therewith. PAR. 5. The acts and practices of respondent in paying, granting or allowing to brokers and direct buyers a commission, brokerage or other compensation, or an allowance or discount in lieu thereof, on their own purchases, as above alleged and described, are in violation of subsection (c) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended (D. Title 15, Sec. 13) .

DECISION AND ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondent named in the caption hereof, and the respondent having been furnished thereafter with copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Restraint of Trade proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which if issued by the Commission, would charge respondent with violation of subsection (c) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended; and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondent of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondent that the law has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commis-sions rules; and , , IVIYSTERY PUBLISHING CO. ET AL. 421 419 Syllabus The Commission, having reason to believe that the respondent has violated subsection (C) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended and having determined that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, hereby issues its complaint, accepts said agreement makes the following jurisdictional findings and enters the following order:

1. Respondent J. Parker Lampert is an individual doing business as ~lission Fruit & Ve.getable Company, with his office and principal place of business located at :Mission, Texas with mailing address as Post Office Box 793, ~iission, Texas.

2. The Federal Trade COlmnission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent. ORDER It ifs ordel' That the respondent, J. Parker Lampert, an individual doing business as :Mission Fruit & Vegetable Company, his agents representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the sale of citrus fruit or fruit products in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Clayton Act, as amended, do forthwith cease and desist from: Paying, granting, or allowing, directly or indirectly, to any buyer, or to anyone acting for or in behalf of, or who is subject to the direct or indirect control of such buyer, anything of value as a commission, brokerage, or other compensation, or any allowance or discount in lieu thereof, upon or in connection with any sale of citrus fruit or fruit products to such buyer for his myn account.

It i8 further' ordered That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (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.