Moore Business Forms, Inc.

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

,,-hieh they have complied with this order. Ix THE l\L\. ITER OF MOORE BUSINESS FORMS, INC.

ORDER, ETC. , 11' REGARD TO THE ALLGED VIOLATION OF SE. 2 (&) OF TH CLYTON ACT Docket 7086. Compla-int, Jial', 1958- Dcc'sion, June, 1964 Order dismissing-failure to establish a prima facie case-complaint charging the largest producer of business forms in the United States with manufacturing plants in 10 States, with discriminating in price between competing purchasers in violation of Sec. 2(a) of the Clayton Act. CO::IPL.AINT The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that the party responclent named in the ca.ption hereof, and hereinafter more particularly designated and described, has violated and is now violating the provisions of subsection (a) of Section :2 of the Clayton Act Complaint 65 F.

(U. C. Title 15, Sec. 13), "s amended by the Robinson-Patman Act approved June 19, 1936, hereby issues its complaint, stating its charges with respect thereto as follows:

P ARr\GRAPH 1. Respondent, J\1oore Business Forms, Inc., a subsidiary of Moore Corporation, Ltd., 350 University A venue, Toronto Ontario, Canada, is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware. It operates its business in the United States through three Divisions: (1) Eastern Division at 900 Buffalo Avenue, Niagara Falls, New York which is its principal place of business in the United States; (2) South- Central Division, 601 E. Hickory Street, Denton, Texas; and (3) Pacific Division at 2624 Yates Street, Los Angeles, California. The general sales policy in each of these Divisions is the same. Respondent recently formed a new Diyjsion, Stock Forn1s C01l1pany, with offces at 4300 Forest Park Road, St. Louis fissouri; 4D1 South Dean Street Englewood, New .Jersey; and 425 Brannon Street, San Francisco Califorina, to engage in the purchase and sale of stock fOllns primarily on 'a mail order basis.

PAR. 2. J\1oore Business Forms, Inc., he.reinafter sometimes referred to as :1\oo1'e or as respondent, is engaged in the manufacture, distr buhod and sale of va.rious classes, types or descriptions of business forms products. It has 18 manufacturing plants and in excess of 150 sales offces throughout the United States and in Hawaii. j)Ioon Business Forms, Inc., is the largest producer of business forms products in the United States, with a total sales volume in 1955 substantially in excess of $78 milion. Approximately 93% of respondent' s business forms products are sold by respondent through its salesmen directly to the users. About 7% are sold through dealers or jobbers.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of its business, as aforesaid, respondent is now, and for a number of years past has been engaged in commerce, as "commerce" is denned in the aforesaid Clayton Act having sold its business forms products from its several plants located in the States of New York, Maryland, Texas, Iowa, Kentucky, Iissoul'i, Alabama, California, Oregon and "\Visconsin, and transported or caused the same to be transported from its plants or other places of business in said states, to purchasers that are users thereof located in other states of the -United States, or in other places under the jurisdiction of the C; united States.

PAR. 4:. In the course and conduct of its business, as afore,said 1\1"oo1'e Business Forms, Inc., is now and for a number of years past has been in substantial competition with others engaged in the manufacture, sale or distribution of business forms products in commerce MOORE BUSI\LESS FORMS , INC. 1065 1063 Complaint between and among the varibus states of the United States, or other places under the jurisdiction of the United States. PAR. 5. In the course and conduct of its business, as aforesaid, respondent3100re has discriminated in price between different purchasers of its business forms products of like grade and quality by selling to some of its user customers at higher prices than to other of its user customers.

V nrious methods were employed to effectuate the discriminations practiced by respondent. Some of these were: 1. "Then the "Regular :Method" of pricing is used, favored customers are allowed a concession or a cut from the computed list price. The unfavored customer is charged the regular list price -without any concession or cut therefrom.

2. \:Vhen the "Special Est.imate:' system is used, those customers who are favored by having their purchases priced according thereto are caused to pay a lower price than is charged to nnfavored customers buying according to the "Regular lethod:' without a price concession. Examples of the discrimination in price alleged are as follows: 1. During 1954 respondent sold sevcrnJ kinds or forms of varying characteristics to GMC Truck and Coach Division of General Motors Corporation at $17.82 per "r, $13.54 per )1, and $26. 33 per, whereas during the same period it sold to other customers similar forms of like grade and quality at higher prices, thereby resulting in concession n,ry differentials in price in excess of 2090 in each instance in favor of the said Gl\1C Truck and Coach Division, 2. During 1951 rospondent sold certain of its forms to .White Owl Express, Inc. , at $19. 75 per, whereas it sold similar forms of like grade and quality to other customers during the same period at higher prices, thereby resulting in concessionary differentials in price in excess of 15% in favor of the said Vhite Owl Express, Inc. 3. During 1954 respondent sold certain of its forms to Alls-Chalmers J1manufacturing Co. at $47. 02 per whe,areas it sold similar forms of like grade and qua,Jity to other customers during the same period at higher prices, thereby resulting in concessionary differentials in price in excess of 20% jn favor of the sajd Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing ('0.

4. During 1955 respondent sold certain of its forms to .J amaic" Vater Supply Company at $4.92 per YI, whereas it sold similar forms of Eke grade and quality to other customers during the same period at, higher prices, thereby resulting in concessionary differentials in price in excess of 30% in favor of the said Jamaica Water Supply Company.

313-121--70-- &: &:

1066 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIOKS Initial Decision 65 F.

The foregoing examples are typical of many price discriminations in transactions wherein respondent Moore sold its business forms products of like grade and quality.y in commerce to different customers f:lvoring some with substantial price concessions and selling to others at list prices as computed from respondent' s own price books. respondent loore s reduced prices and the consequent discriminations in price to its favored customers were suffcient to and did divert business from its competitors. Furthermore, such price reductions by respondent in these and other instances are sufficient to divert business frolll respondent's competitors to respondent in the future. Said price concessions by respondent have been extremely harmful and injurious to responclent:s competitors who have quoted prices ac. cording to their respective price books and have been thus foreclosed from opportunities to compete ror the business on which respondent quoted concessionary prices substantially lmc1er respondenes own list prices nnd under the price,s quot.ed by competitors. PAR. 6. The effect or respondent' s said discriminations in price as hereinabove alleged may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in the line or commerce in which respondent engaged, or to injure, de,stroy, or prevent competition with respondent.

PAR. 7. The discriminations in price, as hereinabove alleged and described, are in violation or subsection (a) or Section 2 or the aforesaid Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act. Miss Ida I. Kloze for the Commission. Y. by Mr. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays Handler New York, 1\. 111iltonHandier and MO'. Stanley D. Robinson; and by ,lb. William J. Fish, RichaJ'dson Newve 1\ew York Eames and 1111'. Stephen H. Philbin for respondent. ITIAL DECISION BY ,VILLLDI L. P ACK, HE -\RIXG EXcDIIX APRIL 30 1!)6- The Commission s complaint in this matter, issued March 13, 1958 charges the respondent, :Moore Business Forms, Inc. , a corporation with discriminating in price in the sale of its products (business forms) in violation of Section (a) of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson- Patman Act (V. C. Title 15, Sec. 13). The hearing examiner t.o whom the ease )\"fls originally assigned was the late Frank Hier. Upon NIl'. Hier s death in .June 1959, the case was reassigned to the prescnt examiner. There have also been several changes in complaint counsel since the complaint was issued. BHITE !l1ANUFAC'l'L:RING co. ET AL. 1067 lot\3 Syllabus case. The only competitive in- This is exclusively a :' primary line" respondent itselfjury charged is in the Ene of comnlerce in which is engaged.

At the conclusion of the case-in-chief in support of the complaint respondent on May 9 , 1963, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that. a prima facie case had not been established. The hearing examiner s ruling on the motion was deferred pending the Docket No.Commission s decision in a companion case Varco, Inc. 7087 r64 F. C. 924, On Febrwtry 24, 1964, the Commission issued its fial order in the U a')eo case, holding t.hat a priIna facie case had not been est.ablished a.nd dismissing the complaint. After a review of the record in the s decision in the U area case present case in light of the Commission complaint counsel has informed the hearing examiner that the motion to dismiss is not opposed.

The Nalco case and the present case arb very similar on the facts and the legal question as to competitive injury presented in the Cm' co case is ident.ical with that presented in the instant case. 1Jn- U arco is controlling here. qUEstionably the Conlmission s decision in It is concluded that a prima facie case in support of the complaint has not been established and that t.he motion to dismiss should be granted.

ORDER It i8 therefore ordered That the complairrt be, and it hereby is dismissed.

DECISION OF THE CO:iDIISSIOX Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice :tective August 1, 1963, the initial decision of the hearing examiner ,hall. on the 18th day of June, 19M, become the decision of the Commission.

Ix THE l\L""TTER BRITE MANUFACTURING CO. ET AL.

ORDER, OPINION , ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TH. .\DE CO::DlISSlON ACT Docket 83125. Complaint, Mar. 15, 1961-Dec-fs'(on, Jnne, 196. Or(kl' requiring Providence, R.I. , distributors of expansion watchbands to jobberl' and wholesalers and retail stores, to cease falsely marking metal watchbands '"Reported as modified by an order of tbe C(1lDmlssion d.'1ed Sept. 25, 196"". , 1068 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIOKS Complaint 65 F.

that contain expansion segments imported from Japan :NIade in U. A." without clearly disclosing on display cards and Oll the watchbands themselves the country of origin of the products.

Iri"AINT Pursuant to t.he provisions of the Federal Trade Comlnission Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to belieyc that Brite l"lanl1facture ing Co., a corporation, Brite Industries, Inc., fI corporatjon ::U. Trading Corp., a corporation, and Samuel Friedman and Theodore Levy, individually and as offcers of said corporations, hereimtftcl' referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Act and it appearing to the Commission t.ha.t a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges as follows:

P ATlAGRAPII 1. Brite 1:manufacturing Co., Brite Industries, Inc., and )LC. Trading Corporation arc corporations organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Rhode Island with their oflices and principal place of business located at 50 Aleppo Street, Providence, Rhode Island. Individual respondents Samuel Friedman and Theodore Levy are offcers of said corporations. Thr-y formulate, direct and control the practices or the corporate responde.nts. The address of the individual respondents is the sam(f as that of the eorpomte respondents.

PAn. 2. Respondents are now, and for some time last past have been engaged in the sale and distribution of expansion watchbands to jobbers and wholesalers and to retail stores for resale to the public. Respondents' said watchbands an principally solel under the trade nalne " B rite.

In the regular and usual.l course and conduct of their said business respondents cause, and ha vo caused, said products, \yhen sold, to be tmnsported from their place of business in th State of Rhode Island to purchasers located in various other states of the united States. Respondents maintain, and at all t-in"les ment.ione herein h maintained, a substantial course of trade in said expansion watchbands in commerce, as "commerce': is defined in the Federal Trade Conmlission Act.

PAR. 3. )Oiany of respondents' expn,nsion watchbands are imported from Japan, while others contain expansion segments which have been imported from Japan and then joined to end pieces made in the United States. Prior to distribution respondents attach their said watchb nds BRITE ML'JUFACT1.-RL1IG CO. ET AL. 1069 10Gi Complaint to cardboard strips and to counter Clispby cards for display and saJe to the public. Various words and statements such as "Brite Brite Brands Brite ianufacturing Co., Providence 9, Rhode Islancl RIEl "Brite, Providence 9, R. " ate printed, and have been printed, OIl t.he said display cards and cardboard strips. R.respondents' \yatchbands, which contain the expansion segments imported from Japan ho.:\;e been, and are now markec1 "1\Iac1e in L SA. " At no place on the cardboard strips or display cards, or on th2 \'; tchbands 2.ssembled in the enited States which contain the imported expansion segm.ents as aforesaid, is the country of origin or the sa,icl irnported watchbands ()l' the imported expansion segrnents disclosed. As a result thereof, the pm. clws1ng public is llot informed, prior to the purchase, of the country of origin of said imported brmde, or the country of origin of the xp/1nsion segments contained in said bands. The use of the aforesaid words, stittements and represcntfltions, in the absence, of such disc1osu:re, tends to lead the public to believe that said expansion watchbrmds in their entirety are of domestic origin. PAR. -1 There are among t.he members of the purchasing public substantial lllU11ber '1,ho have a preference for products originating in tbe, -Uniteel States over products originftting in foreign countries inc1ucling expansion ,yatchbnnds originating in Japan. \n. 5. In the course and conduct of their business and :for the purpose of inducing the purchase oJ their said products, respondents have ccu1se,d to be printed on the cardboard strips to which their watchbands are attached the word "GuaranteccP, thereby representing that the said watchbands are unconditionally guaranteed. PAR. 6. Said representation was and is false, misleading and deceptive. In truth and in fact said watchbands were not, and are not, unconditionally guaranteed in that the so-called gum' antee provides for the payment of a service charge. The terms, conditions and extent to which said guarantee applies, and the manner in which the guarantor will perform thereunder are not disclosed in respondents' advertising Ina tter.

PAR. 7. Respondents, in the course and conduct of their business have been and are in substantial competition in cmnmcrce with corporations, firms and individuals likewise engaged in the sale and distribution of expansion watchbands.

PAR. 8. The use by respondents of the fOlegoing false and misleading st.atements, representations and practices and their failure to clisclose the country of origin of their watchbands has had, and now has the c.apacity and tendency to mislead and deceiye a substantial portion of the purchasing public into the mistaken and elTOllE;ODS belief th;tt. said products are of domestic orig111 8nc1 said Etatements, representa- , Initial Decision 65 F.

tially and implications ,were and are true, and to induce a substantial portion of the purchasing public, because of said mistaken and erroneous belief, to purchase said product. As a result thereof, trade in commerce has been unfairly diverted to respondents from their competitors and injury has thereby been done to competition in commerce.

PAR. 0. 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 and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Mr. Garland S. Fe1'U"8on supporting the complaint. flfT. J. H. Wachtel Washington, D. , for respondents. Itial DEOISI01\ By ,VILLIAM K. JACKSON HEARING EXAMINER OCTOBER 25 , 1963 This proceeding was cOlmnenced by the issuance of fl. complaint on larch 15, 1961, charging the above-named corporate rc:'pollc1ents ;111cl the individual respondents, theiroficers, with unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, in commt'l'ce in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act by (a) falsely marking metal watch bands, which contain expansion segments imported from Japan .Jhde in U. " without disclosing on the clLrdboanl strips upon which the watch bands are mounted or display cards to which the mounted bands are attached, or on the w"tch bands themselves the country of origin, Japan; and (b) making misleading and deceptive statements as to guarantees imprinted on the cardboarc1 strips to which their watch bands are attached.d thereby repre 811ting that said watch bands are unconditionally guaranteed, "hen the terms conditions, and extent to which said guaranty applies and the manner in which the guarantor will perform thereunder were not disclo ecl inrespondents' "advertising matter. -Cpon being served with tho complaint Respondents appeared hy counsel and thereafter filed their joint answer (,,) "admit.ting the aJIegat.ions of Paragraph One of the complaint. but. denying the portion thereof which al1cges that respondents Friedman and Levy formulate. direct, Rnd cont.rol prncticrs of corporate rE' ;)onclE'nt . :.11d (b) denying the allegations of Paragraphs Two. Three: Four, Five Six, Seven, Eight, and Nine of the complaint but admitting as to the corporate respondents so much of said paragr"phs as "llc ed that eaid respondents sell expansion watch hands.

BRITE :MANUFACTUIUNG CO. ET AL. 1071 1067 Initial Decision A prehearing conference was held in this matter on March 1962 pursuant to which certain unconteted facts were agreed to, lists of exhibits and witnesses were exchanged and certain admissions were made by respondents. In addition, complaint counsel by motion dated February 28, 1962 requested the hearing examiner to take offcial notice of the following facts:

1. That there are among the members of the purchasing public a substantial number who have a preference for products originating in the United States over products originating in foreign countries. 2. That when the country of origin of merchandise offered for sale in the l:united States is not marked or if so marked, the markings are concealed, the purchasing public or a substantial segment thereof understands and believes such products to be wholly of domestic origin. By order dated April 23, 1962, the hearing examiner took offcial notice of the matters hereinabove set forth, but in doing so, pointed out that such matters could be rebutted by respondents by evidence adduced at the hearing. Respondents, at the hearing, did not avail themselves of this opportunity and in the absence of any such evidence the aforesaid matters oifcially noticed by the examiner are herein now adopted as findings of fact.

Hearings on the complaint were held at Providence, Rhode Island on July 20 and 30, 1963, at which testimony and other evidence were offered in support of the complaint. The respondents, at the close of the Comntission s case, presented no evidence and moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the Government had failed to prove or establish the facts ,tlleged in the complaint. Proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and brief were filed by counsel supporting the complaint and by counsel for respondents on September 19, 1963.

Consideration has been given to proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and briefs submitted by the parties and all proposccl findings of fact hereinafter not specifically adopted arc rejected. Based upon the entire record and his observation of the witnesses the hearing examiner makes the following findings as to facts, conclusions and order.

Fu.mings OF FACT 1. Brite 1anllfacturing Co. , Brite Industries, Inc.. and B.M. Trading Corporation are corporations organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Hhode I5Jand with their offces and principal place of business located at 50 Aleppo Street, Providenee, Hhode Island. An of the respondent corporations sell expansion watch bands (Answer paragraphs 1 ond2). :

1072 FEDERAL TRADECOJ\HSSION DECISIONS Initial Decision (j5 F. 2. Since its inception in 19f)5 , B.lVLC. Trading Corp., hereinafter referred to aD B.11.C., has hnpol'tecl exp::msion watch bands and substantial segments thereof (Tr. l04, 111 226, and 227). Appruximately ;30% or such goods imported by B.il,I.C. comes rrom Japan (Tr. 226). 3. Since its inception in 1955 , Brite Industries, Inc., hereinafter l'dOTred! 0 as Brite. Industrie.s, has ( o:ae the assembling, finishing, alteration, polishing and plating ..Iorh: on th3 imported expansion watch bands or imported segments thereof (Tr. 111). 4. Since its inception in 1955, Brite )lanufacturing Co., hereinafter referred to as Brite, has ftctcd as the sales agent and distributor of Brite" expnnsi011 watch bands including the imported and partially imported l':atch bfllcls which nrc tho subject of this complaint (Tr. 111). Said wat.eh bands ate solel and c1i,'3tributed by Brite in the United States ::,0 approximately Olle thousand wholesale and. ret"lil outlets for 1'5sa10 to the public under the name of "Brite" ('11'. 112). In connection with its f:iale and distribution of said '\vatch bands, Brite uses and issues to such ,wholesalers and retailers "loose leaf: cnta.logs and catalog sheets depicting the I\'atch bands and counter display cards or racks upon \\'which they arb shown to the public (Tl'. 119 , CX 1 \ 2 , 3 , 10, 14, 17, and 19). The display mrds 01' racks are used as point sale advertising t.ools (Tr. 237).

5. Prior to thc incorporation of YI.C. Brite Industries and Brite in 1955 , the entire business and functions of these three corporate entities 1;81'8 carried on as Brite )Ianufacturing Co. (Tr. 224). 6. The respondent corporations since 1955 have operated out of the same premises: each corporation Ivas assigned different complementary functions in connection with the ever-all business and prior to 1955 the business was essentially an individually owned and singly operated affair. In their joint answer all three respondent corporations admit that they sell expansion watch bands. L:nder these circumstances the business affairs of the three corporate respondents are so interwoven as to make them responsible, if proved, for the acts and practices charged in the comple5nt. See Delawa?' IV ateh Company, he. Docket 8411 , AUg11st 15, 1963 (63 F. C. 491J.

7. The individual respondents Samuel F,'iedman and Theodore Levy are offcers of the respondent corporations, Respondent Friedman has served as preside.nt of an of the corporate respondents since their incorporation in 1955 and Respondent Levy has held the position of secretary for the three corporate respondents during the same period of time (Tr. 102, 235). The individual respondents Friedman and Levy managed and controlled the affairs and policies of the respondent corporations up to August 21 1D58 nd no evidence has been adduced to show that this situ!ition has undergone any change since that date BRITE MANUFACTURING CO. ET AL. 1073 1067 Initial Decision (CX 38b). Afrmative evidence of record shows that Respondent Friedman acted as any other executive might act in the position of president of the corporations, and that he hired and fired important personnel, and made decisions for the corporations (Tr. 103). 8. It is conceded and the hearing examiner finds that a1l of the corporate respondents mainta-in, and for some time last past have maintained, a substantial course of trade in imported expansion watch bands and partially imported expansion watch bands in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act (Tr. 109 110). 9. It is 'also conceded and the hearing examiner finds that respondents have imported and continue to import completed expansion watch bands and substantial segments of watch bands such as center expansion segments which are then joined to end pieces (Tr. 110). AJ of the aforesaid imported and partially imported expansion watch bands are sold and distributed as completed watch bands by respondents under the trade name "Brite 10. Prior to the distrrbution of the aforesaid watch bands respondents attach said watch bands to cardboard strips. In 1956 and 1957 the bands mounted on the cardboard strips were encased in a cellophane bag (Tr. 239, CX 12 and CX 13), but in J 960 a plastic cover or shoJI was ai"Dxed to the front of the cardboard strips (Tr. 240, CX 20 and CX 32). The individual bands on their cardboard holders so packaged are then attached to or hung on c01mter display cards or racks which serve to hold a group, 'or assortment, of several, or at times large numbers, of watch bands (Bands CX 12 and CX 13 were hung on Card CX 10; Band CX 20 was hung on Card CX 19). On the face of the cardboard strips holcing the six watch bands put into evidence the word "Brite" appears (CX 12, 13 , 20, 32, 33, and 37a). On the back of the cardboard strip in conjunction with the instl1actions for attaching the band to the watch the words " Brite fanufacturing Co., Providence 9, Rhode Island" appears (CX 12, 13, and 33) and in conjunction with the gua.rantee provisions the words "Brite, Providence 9, R.I." (CX 20 and 32.) The display cards or racks at the bottom also carry the words "Brite Manufacturing Co., Providence 9, RI." (CX 9, 10 , and 19).

11. Respondents concede that the cardboard strips and packaging do not state the foreign country of origin of the watch bands or segments thereof (Tr. 232). Similarly the display cards or racks do not state the foreign country of origin.

12. In support of the allegations in the complaint, a total of six watch bands were received in evidence. Although the gravamen of the complaint charges that respondents markcd their watch bands, which contain expansion segments imported from J apan iade in - 1074 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIO:\" DECISIOKS Initial Decision 65 F.

not one of the six watch bands insofar as the hearing examiner is able to detect is so marked and complaint counsel in his proposed findings J1as failed to point out any such watch hand in evidence that is so marked. On the contrary, an imo:pection by the hearing examiner of the six watch bands in evidence discloses that they are alj marked either "Made in Japan" or "Japan" on the linkage (eX 12, 13, 20, 32 , and 37a). The uncontradicted testimony of R.e. ponclent Friedman shows that since at least August 21 1958 (the date of a "Stipulation as to the Facts and Agreement to Cease and Desist" entered into by responde,nts and approved by the Commission covering among other things this type of violation (eX 38) J, a11 expansion watch hands sold by Brite to retailers and wholesalers have been marked thereon " fadc in Japan" or the appropriate country of foreign origin, whether it was imported entirely, or contained one part, or was made completely of parts of foreign origin (Tr. 229). This markiug procedure or practice was adopted by Brite prior to August 21 : 1958, and has been continued in force and effect until the present (Tr. 230). Accordingly, the hearing e:examiner finds that the charge in the complaint aUcging that respondents mismark imported watch bands as "J\facie in 1J.S. is not supported by even so much as (1, scintilla of evidence, and as a matt.er of fact the Commission s exhibits aftlrmativeJy establish \ -ithout exception that such mttch bands are all marked on the linkage Thfacle in Japan " or "Japan 13. In seekhlg a Cease ana Desist Order complaint counsel relies on the "Stipulation as to Facts and Agreement to Cease and Desisf' entered into by respondents and approved by the Commission August 21 1958 to establish the marking of respondents' watch hands "yIacle in " (CX 38c). Said Stipulation and Agreement is admittedly only evidence of prior acts and practices and expressly states that it is entered into :'without prejudice. to its (the Commission s) right to issue R complaint and institute formal proceedings against the said parties or (1.ny of them, if at any time the Commission shall deem that sneh action is warrantecl. ' The hearing examiner believes the latter to be a representation by the Commission that in the absence of evidence of subsequent acts in violation of the Stipulation and Agreement the issuance of a formal complaint would not be \van"ante-d. As a corollary, it would seem to follow that s110uld a complaint issue mere reliance .on the "Stipulation and Agreement" without evidence of subsequent acts as alleged in the complaint in violation thereof would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of such agreements, particularly where the ads and practices have long since been discontinued. Accordingly the hearing cxamjm Decifical1y rejects complaint counsel's proposed finding that respondents mark their imported watch BRITE MAUFACTURI!-TG CO. ET AL. 1075 log. Initial Decision bands "lllade in U. " where the only evidence to support this is contained in a 1958 "Stipulation 14. In order to buttress his case, complaint counsel seeks to shift the thrust of the complaint from a charge of mismarking the country of foreign origin to a charge of conceal'n the marking of the correct country of foreign origin by the packaging, without disclosing on the packaging or display cards the country of foreign origin. In effect complaint cmilsel without specifically so stating seeks to liberally construe the charges in Paragraph Three of the complaint so as to cover the charge of conceaument. Paragraph Three of the complaint reads as follows:

PJi. 3. :JIany of re pondents' expansion \vatch bands are imported from Japan while others contain expansion segments which have been imported from Japan and then joined to end pieces made in the United States. Prior to distribution respondents attach their said watchbands to cardboard strips and to counter display cards for display and sale to the public. Various words and statements such as " Brite Brite Brands Brite :\1manufacturing Co. , Providence 9, Rhode Islar.d " and " Brite, Pr()',idel1ce 9. R. I." are printed, and have been printed, on the said display card3 and cardboard strips. Respondents' watchbands, which contain the expansion segments imported from Japan, have been and are now marked "Made in USA." At no place on the cardboard strips or display cards, or on the watchbands assembled in the United States which contain the imported -expansion segments, as aforesaid, is the country of origin of the said imported watchbands or the imported expansion segments disclosed. As a result thereof, the purchasing public is not informed, prior to the purchase, of the country of origin of said imported bands, or the country of origin of the expansion segments contained in said hands. The use of the aforesaid words, statements and representations, in the absence of such disclosure, tends to lead the public to believe that: said expansion watchbands in their entirety are of domestic origin. J.s. The purpose of a. compla.int is to give respondents r€asonable and fail' notice of the acts or practices with which they are charged. P,\.ragraph Three C'c1,n be Sl1ml1Hlrized as follows: (1) :vany of the respondents' expansion watch bands are imported frnEl J apfUl.

(:2) Others contain expansion segments which have been imported from .Japan flucl then joined to end pieces made in the United States. (:3) Hespondents attach said watch bands to (a) cardboard strips and (b) display cards.

(4-) Va.riolls words Rllc1 statements, sneh as "Brite \ "Brite Bands Brite :l\fg. Co. Providence, 9, Rho(le Island", and "Brite, Providence 9, R.I. , have been printed on the said display cards and cardbORnl strips.

(5) R.e,spondent.s' watch ba.nds, which contain the expansion segmelts impol'te,d from .Japan, have beml and are now marked "Made in n.

) , 1076 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIO DECISIO Initial Decision 65 F.

(6) At no place on (a) the cardboard strips or (b) the display cards or (c) the watch bands assembled in the United States containing inlportedexpansion segments is the country of origin of t.he imported watch bands or imported segments disclosed. (Emphasis Supplied.

(7) The USe of the aforesaid words, statements and representations in the absence of such disclosure, tends to lead the public believe that said expansion watch bands in their entirety are of domestic origin. (Emphasis Supplied.

16. The various statements contained in Paragraph Three as summarized above in items (1) to (7) must be read in relation to each other. Consequently, reading the paragraph as n whole, the princ.ipal element of the charge, assuITrnarized in iteIn (5), is that respondents mismark their watch bands "Made in U. " All of the rest of the statements in the paragraph are reasonably related to and must be read in conjunction with this principal charge. Items (1), (2), and (3) supra state certain basic facts. Item (4) sctting forth the use of the words "Brite Mfg. Co., Providence 9, Rhode Island", or variations thereof, when read in conjunction with item (5), serves to further the impression that the watch bands are manufactured in the United States. However, item (4) adds no new eJcment to the charg' , but merely 'indicates a compounding of the mismarking. Parenthetically it should be noted that the words "Brite Mfg. Co., Providence 9, Rhode Island" 'actually are impriuted on the back of the cardboard strips under the guarantee provisions to inform the purchaser where to mail the watch band in case of a defect. (eX 20 and 32. Again reading items (6) and (7) in conjunction with item (5) we fid that item (6) is worded in t.he alternative, and a reasonable interpretation thereof would be that m!tl'king the country of origin on either the cardboard strips, display cards or watch band WOl11d suffce. Finally item (7) read in the coutext of item (6) states that absent such" disclosure, the public would be deceived. The word "sllch can refer only to the marking of either the cardboard strips, display cards or watch bands.

As so jnterpretecl, Paragraph Three reasonably pbces respondents on notice that they are charged with deception in mismarking their watch bands as "Made in U. " without disclosing on either the cardboard strips, display cards, or watch bands the foreign country of origin. There is no reasonable basis for reading into Paragraph hr2c language that puts rcsponde,nls on notice that they arc charged 1 ex 12 and ex 13 also carry these words on the back side in conjunction with the Instructions for attaching to the watch, but both of these exhibits were in use prior t,) the 1958 "Stipu1ution " discussed in finding 1\0. 13 supra. BRITE MANUFACTURING CO. ET AL. 1077 1067 Initial Decision Inital concealing the correct foreign country of origin marked on the watch band by virtue of their packaging. Without such unequivocl notice to respondents, it would be manifestly unfair and a denial of due processes to enlarge the scope of the complaint to include these charges. It should be noted that complaint counsel at no time sought to aJncnd the complaint to jncludc a charge of concealment and it is now too late to correct this deficiency.

17. Complaint counsel in support of his position in this matter relies primarily on the decision of the Commission in Manco Watch Sty.ap Co., Inc. Docket No. 7785, March 13, 1962 (60 F. C. 495, 496J. Reference to the complaint in that matter shows that the pertinent paragraph in that complaint reads as follows: PAR. 4. Respondents import their watch bands from Japan and Hong Kong. After receipt of said watch bands they are packaged or mounted for retail sale by respondents. The packaging and mounting takes various forms depending upon the retail customer outlet. Some of the bands are mounted on individual cards and enclosed in separate cellophane envelopef'. These are affxed to large counter display cards and are sold primarily to drug stores and other retailers who utilze this method of offering merchandise to the public. Other bands are packaged in individual containers for sale primarily tbl"ong:h chain stores. Some are attached to cards and enclosed in boxes having a dear plastic " window others are f'.nclosed ina clear plastic tube with a card inserted; while others are mounted on cards under a clear plastic "bubble . At no place on the packaging, container, or cards is the fact disclosed that respondents' bands are imported from Japan and Hong KOIJg. Stamped into the Dletal on a link on the inside of the bands is the word "Hong Kong" or " Tapan as tbe case'may be. In many instances these words are so small, indistinct or made unnoticeable because of other impressions, that they do not constitute adequate notice that the bands are imported. Further, the manner of packaging conceals the inside of the band so that the words stamped thereon cannot be seen prior to purchase except by destroying or damaging the containel'Dr packaging. 18. The 11 anco complaint clearly and concisely spells out the deception allegccl as c.oncenJment of the, country of origin on the watch lfllnd by packaging. The respondents in that matter were placed on full notice of the acts and practices with which they were charged. Furthermore, the 111 aT/CO cod1phint was issued over a year before the compla.int in this matter Rnd the charges in 111anco could have been ea.sily incorporate-clinto the subject complaint. In the absence of such charges, they may not be read in by the hearing examiner. 19. C01npb.int counsel in support of his position also relies On the decision of the Commission in Bald1lain Bracelet Corp. Doeket No. 8316, October 2 , 196:? (61 'l. C. 1345J. Inspection of the complaint nd (le,cision in that luaUer reveals that it was alleged and proved that respondent3 therein failed to make any affrmative disclosure of foreign origin on the watch bands in issue (see page 1365 of the 1078 FEDERAL TRADE CO:MMISSION DECISIO),TS Initial Decision 65 F, Decision). Ihwing proved this charge, the order, in addition to requiring respondents to properly mark their watch bands, contained an additional paragra.ph requiring a disclosure on t.he packaging. There is no doubt that once the charges in a complaint. have been proved, the Commission may issue an order suffciently broad to cover all forms of the decepti,' e acts or practices. That is not the case here. 20. In a recent decision Sacks Woo/en Co.. !nc.. Docket No. 8436 November 27, 1962 (61 F. C. 1226J, the Commission refused to enter an order dne to the substantial variance of the pleadings from the evidence. In that case the complaint alleged respondents misbranded Its wool products by understating the wool fiber content and the evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrated that they misbrancle.d wool products by overstating the wool fiber content. Although the Commission found the latter to be eqnalJy false and deceptive within the intent and meaning of Section 4(a) (1) of the Wool Products Labeling Act, it detennined that "it would be inappropriate to enter a cease and desist order as to this charge on this record. " It is submitted that the Sacks case Is perhaps a weaker ease than the one at hand, since that complaint put. the respondents on notice of misbrand. ing which in fa,ct was proved. In the instant case responc1cntswere put on notice of mismarking which was in fact not proved. 21. Respondents from 1956 to 1960 for the purpose of inducing the purchase or their watch bands have on the front of the cardboard strips to which the watch bands are attached used the words "Gnaranteed" and "Fully Guaranteed" with no words of limitation, condition or qualification in e10se conjunction therewith. (CX 12 , 13 , 20, and 32). In 1960 respondents pbccd the foJ1owing legend on the back side of the cardboard strip: (CX 20 and 32) THIS WA1'CII BAND IS GUARANTEED BY BRITE. It is the product of expert craftsmen, working with quality materials. Brite s faith in its performance is expressed by this guarantee * '" *' to repair or (at its option) replace for any manufacturing defect without charge, within thirty days of purchase. In 1960 respondents placed the following legend on the bottom of one of Its display cards: (CX 17) This watch band is the product of expert craftsmen, working with fine materials. RRITE' S faith in its performance is expressed by this Guarantee to repair or replace for any mechanical defect, provided the band is returned with this Guarantee, plus 50 for postage and handling. 22. No evidence was adduced by complaint counsel that rcsponde,nts nave in the course and conduct of their business ever charge a single purchaser of their watch bands a service charge for t.he. handling' service and repair of their bands or that respondents have ever en- BRITE Mf"\ UFAGTURING CO. ET AL. 1079 1067 Initial Decision forced the 30 day guarantee period.' Accordingly, the hearing examiner specifically rejects any such finding. 23. Afrmative uncontradicted testinlony in the record shows that respondents established prior to August 21, 1958 a policy and practice of no charge whatsoever in connection with their guarantee (Tr. 284) ; that the respondents do not presently charge a nw.filing fee or any other charge in connection with their guarantee; th Lt they do not enforce the 30 day limitation of the guarantee, and that any "watch bands \which are returned are replaced without charge (Tr. 283). 24. Complaint c01msel in his bricf argues: (Brief, page 19) In the matter of Baldwin Bracelet Corp., Docket 8316, decided December 18. 1962, the Commission found that the words of condition and limitation appeared on the back of the individual watchband holders to which respondents' watchbands were attached while the guarantee representation "unconditionally guaranteed" and "fully guaranteed" appeared on the counter display cards or racks to which said watchbands were attached. The Commission in di ussing this question stated:

These limitations, although they do not appear on the display placards or acks, are set out on the 1"emerge side 01 the cards to which the bracelets are nttached. They are not viible to the prospective purchaser unless he removes tll e carded" bracelet from the placard or ra.c7c and examines the back side of the card. (Vndescoring Supplied.

What complaint counsel overlooks and fails to quote is the sentence immediately preceding the quoted portion from the Baldwin case whichmads :

III fact, however, consumers attempting to avail themselves of the guarantee must pay the sum of35 (prior to 1960 the amount was 251) to respondents and the guarantee period is limited to one year. No such fulding can be made here and as pointed out above there is affrmative evidence in the record to support and a finding has been made that no such service chaTge or guarantee period is in fact imposed by respondents. Accordingly, there is no substantial evidence establishing that respondents' wateh bands are not " Fully Guaranteed.

25. In the sale and distribution of "Brite" watch bands including those imported from Japan, and those containing substantial seg- Complaint counsel relies solely on the "Stipulation as to Facts and Agreement to Cease and Desist" executed August 21, 1958. but as set forth in Finding No. 13 suprathis stipulation without evidence of subsequent acts In violation thereof Is not suffcient to sustain the allegations of the complaint. a The complaint alleges that the terms find conditions of respondents.' guarantees are not disclosed in their "advertising matter." No advertising matter was placed in the recoru in support of this charge and consequently proof of statements on the back of display cards is I1t variance with the allegations of the complaint. However, in view of the failure of complaint counsel to prove that respondents' bands are not in fact fully guaranteed, this variance in the pleadings is not material. 1080 FEDERAL TRADE IMISSIO:. DECISIONS Opinion 65 F.

ments which have been imported from Japan, respondents have been in substantial cOlnpetition in commerce with corporations, firms and individuals likewise engaged in the sale and distribution of expansion watch bands.

CONCLUSIONS 1. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of and over the respondents and the subject matter of this proceeding. 2. The complaint herein states a cause of action and this proceeding is in the public interest.

3. The reliable, probative and substantial evidence in this record does not sustain the allegations of the complaint. ORDER Accordingly, It is ordered That the complaint in this matter be, and hereby is dislnissed.

INION OF THE COMMISSION TE , 1964 By Reilly, OO7n/ln'iswneT:

Respondents herein have been charged with violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

This case is before us on appeal from dismissal of the complaint by the hearing examiner at the close of the Commission scase-in-chief. The case breaks down into a number of separate considerations including: the question of guarantee; the suffciency of the complaint as far as failure to disclose is concerned; whether, assuming the complaint suffciently charges failure to disclose as distinguished from mismarking, a prima facie case has been made out by complaint counsel, and finally whether, if complaint counsel has made a prima facie case, the matter should be finally disposed of at thi juncture or whether it should be remanded to the hearing examiner for further proceedings. The hearing examiner found that although respondents' display cards said "guaranteed" and "fully guaranteed" the cards on which the watch bands are mounted indicate that respondent willrcplace defective watch bands only if claim is made within 30 days of purchase and is accompanied by a 500 payment. The record contains no proof and the hearing examiner accordingly found that respondents have never insisted upon either the 30- day or 50 requirement. More than this, the hearing examiner found affrmative evidence ,that respondents honor t.he guarantee without qualificat.ion.

BRITE MANFACTURING CO. ET AL. 1081 1067 Opinion We concur in the hearing examiner s dismissal of the complaint to the extent it relates to a guarantee.

The hearing examiner found that the gravamen of the complaint misrepresented theirset forth in paragraph three is tha'! respondents products to be domestically manufactured through the device of marking them "Made in U. " and by suggesting domestic manufacture through prominent indication of the location of the place of manufacture as being Providence, Rhode Island.

The hearing examiner found and the record supports the proposition that there is no evidence that respondents mark any of their products "Made in U. " and, further, that the indication of the place of manufacture being Providenee, Rhode Island, is entirely innocuous. The hearing examiner rejected complaint counsel's argument that a stipulation executed by respondents in 1958 contained admissions . to mismarking and can therefore be used to make up any deficiency in the proof in this regard. The hearing examiner took the ,position that the stipulation was an implied agreement by the Commission not to use it or introduce evidence of pre-stipulation violations in subsequent proceedings in the absence of some indication that there have been post- stipulation violations.

IVe reject the reasoning of the hearing examiner as obligating the Commission in this connection, particularly in light of the Commission s Rules adopted May 1957, which prevailed at the time of the stipulation and which provided at 1.55: Effect of stipulation: When an executed stipulation is approved by the Commission the matter is closed without prejudice to the right of the Commission to reopen if and when warranted by the facts. The agreement does Dot constitute an admission by tbe parties that they have engaged in any method, act or practice violative of the law but it shall, it relevant to the issues, be admissible as evidence of the prior use 01 the acts or practices set forth therein in any later formaZ proceerling. (Emphasis -added.

While we disagree with the hearing examiner that the Commission is bound to fid post-stipulation violations before it can employ the stipulation or pre-stipulation evidence, nevertheless, we feel that where there is no suggestion of post-stipulation violation, the Commission, as a matter of policy, should not rcsurreet a stipulation such as that here involved. Thus, to the extent that complaint counsel relies on the stipulation to prove mismar1cing, we think that his argument should be rejected, since the record contains no hint that respondents, since 1958 have mismarked their products as being "Made in U. Apart from the question of mismarking, the examiner explieitly rejected complaint counsel's argument that either the principal or a subsidiary charge was failure to disclose.

31B-121--70-- 1082 FEDERAL TRADE C01U\HSSION DECISIONS Opinion 65 F.

The pertinent paragraph of the complaint, paragraph three, has elements of both mismarking and failure to disclose. We think a fair reading of the paragraph reveals that the references to domestic manufacture were intended to provide counterpoint to the central charge of failure to disclose. We think the nub and charging sentence of the complaint is "At no place on the cardboard strips or display cards, or on the watch bands assembled in the United States which contain the imported expansion segments, as aforesaid, is the country of origin of the said imported watch bands or the imported expansion segments disclosed.

Paragraph three then goes on to spell out the ultimate deception upon the public brought about by the failure to disclose "country of origin of said imported watch bands.

The correlakive of failure to disclose foreign origin is the implied assertion of domestic origin and thus we find it entirely reasonable for a charging paragraph to contain elements of both. We consider failure to disclose the principal charge and mismarking a subsidiary makeweight. For this reason we are entirely out of sympathy with the rationale of the hearing examiner s Findings 14, 15 and 16. Once it is established that the complaint charges failure to disclose the question arises whether complaint counsel has made out a case. On appeal respondents argued that no prima facie case had been made because there had been no showing that foreign made products were in fact displayed on the cards and in the packages which respondents admit bore no disclosure as to foreign origin. Respondents admit that some of their products are made in Japan and that none of their display cards 01' packages bear a disclosure as to foreign origin. They deny, however, that complaint counsel has tied in watch bands proven to be of foreign origin with display cards and packages containing no disclosure. In short, respondents state that there is no proof that the watch bands in evidence, which are on display cards which admittedly do not disclose foreign origin, came from a foreign country. Even though all of the watch bands in evidence ate marked Jap'i1 respondents argue, correctly, we think, that this is not proof that they are of foreign origin.

l,Ve are satisiied from our examination or the record that complaint counsel has adduced the necessary elements of proof (0 support the con1plaint' s cha.rge of non-disclosure.

A large number or display cards, cntalog sheets, watch bancls and invoir.e:: , as well as a consic1enable am01:mt of testimony, are in the record, but it has been diffcult (0 find ajj of (these clements related to an identifiable ,,,uteh band in tile recol'd which was sold in comme.rce and demonstrated to have been or foreign origin, fmd shown to have been BRITE MANUFACTURING CO. ETAL. 1083 1067 Opinion displayed on a display card and in a package whereon foreign origin was not shown.

Hespondents concede that there is no marking as to foreign origin on any of their catalog sheets, display cards or watch band packages. There is in evidence a 1960 memorandum of an offcer of respondents 1 wherein various then current assortments of respondents' watch bands are described and wherein it is indicated that they are wholly or partly of foreign origin.

The assortments described in the memorandum in question are depicted on catalog sheets included in the record. These catalog sheets also depict the display cards on which the watch bands are mounted and there is testimony that these pictures on the catalog sheets are reproductions of the display cards. There is in evidence a number of invoices showing the sale in com4 merce of assortments depicted in the catalog. Furthermore, assortment )fa. 166, identified as partly Japanese in the 1960 memorandum ' was hung on a display card depicted on a catalog sheet 6 which display card is in evidence.' The display card includes watch bands manufactured in part in Japan. Finally, there is in the record an invoice 8 representing sale in commerce of assortment No. 166.

,Ve think this adequately supports a charge of nondisclosure. At the conclusion of complaint counsel's case in chief respondents counsel stated ",Ve have no evidence to present' . * the respondent rests Thereafter, the hearing examiner closed the record but indicated that respondents might have the record note that they wanted to file a motion to dismiss.'" Thereafter respondents filed their " Request to Hearing Examiner for Findings and :Motion to Dismiss. We think the record is suffcient for issuance of a decision and final order by the Conunission, and we see no necessity for rema.nding the matter to the hea.ring examiner.

Respondents chose not to introduce evidence by way of defense either to a charge of mismarking or failure to disclose foreign Origin. In so choosing, it cannot be saiel that responde,nts were misled into be- 1 ex 22(11), (b) Ilnd (c).

ex 5(a) to I'(w).

2:17 to 240.

-rxi ex 5(a)22 (n)toto5(w).(c).

6CX 5(e).

7CS If).

8 ex 2S.

11 Tr. 285.

w Tr, 288.

1084 FEDERAL TRADE COMMSSION DECISIONS Final Orde 65 F.

lieving that the charge to which they were required to answer was one of mismarking and that consequently they had had no opportunity to present a defense as to failure to disclose foreign origin. There is nothing in the record which would lead respondents to believe that mismarking was the gravamen of the complaint. Indeed the record indicates that respondents afrmatively believed that the charge was failure to disclose foreign origin. In their Motion for a More Definite Statement and Extension of Time, respondents in speaking of the complaint stated "The 'ilegal' conduct detrimental to the public interest and asserted in broad terms is: (1) the failure to disclose the country of origin Furthermore, it was not until issuance of the initial decision that respondents learned that the hearing examiner was of opinion that the gravamen of the complaint was mismarking rather than failure to disclose foreign origin.

The appeal of complaint counsel is granted in part and denied in part.

The Findings and Conclusions of the hearing examiner to the extent they conflict with this opinion are overruled. The hearing examiner s order is overruled. An appropriate order will be entered. FINAL ORDER JUNE 18 1964 This matter having been heard by the Commission upon complaint counsel's appeal from the hearing examiner s initial decision and upon briefs and oral argument in support thereof and in opposition thereto and the Commission having rendered its decision granting in part and denying in part the appeal of complaint counsel. It i. ordered That respondents Brite Manufacturing Co., a corporation, Brite Industries, Inc., a corporation, and B.M.C. Trading Corp. a corporation, and their offcers, and Samuel Friedman and Theodore Levy, individually and as offcers of said corporations, and respondents' agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale and distribution of expansion watch bands, or any other products, in commerce, as "commerce" is defmed in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Offering for sale, sellng or distributing said products in packages or containers in such a mailer that the name of the country or place of origin on the product is concealed without clearly disclosing the country or place of origin of the product in a conspicuous place on the package or container. BRITE MAFACTURING CO. ET AL. 1085 1067 Order 2. Offering for sale, selling or distributing said products mounted or affxed to cards in such a manner as to conceal the name of the country or place of origin without disclosing on such cards the name of the country or place of origin. It is further ordered That the hearing examiner s initial decision to the extnt it is in conflict with the accompanying opinion be, and it hereby is, modified, and as modified is adopted as the decision of the Commission.

It is further ordered That respondents, 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 the order set forth herein. ORDER :;10DU'YING Glider To G&-\SE AND DESIST SEP:MER 25 , 1964 Respondents having filed a motion pursuant to S 3.25 of the Commission s Rules of Practice for reconsideration of the fial order entered by the Commission on J unc 18, 1964, and further requesting that the Conmlission furnish guide lines for complia,nce with its order and the COITunission having determined that guide lines for compliance should not be provided in the present instance but should 'be more properly sought under S 3.26 (b) of the Commission s Rules of Practice, and the Commission having determined that clarification of its order is in the public interest.

It is ordered That the final order of the Commission entered June 1964, is modified to read as follows:

It i8 ordered That respondents Brite Manufacturing Co., a corporation, Brite Industries, Inc., a corporation, and BJI,f.C. Trading Corp., a corporation, and their offcers, and Samuel Friedman and Theodore Levy, individually and as offcers of sa.id corporations, fmd respondents' agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale sale and distribution of expansion watch bands, or any other products in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: Offering for sale, selling or distributing any such product packaged, or mounted in a container, or on a display card, without disclosing the country or place of foreign origin of the product, or substantial part thereof, on the front or face of such packaging, container, or display card, so positioned as to clearly have application to the product so packaged or mounted, and of such degree of permanency as to remain thereon until consummation of con- ;.

1086 FEDERAL TRADE CQ:NThllSSION DECISIONS Complaint 65 F.

sumer sale of the product, and of such conspicuousness as to be likely observed and read by purchasers and prospective purchasers making casual inspection of the product as so packaged or mounted.

It further ordered That the hearing examiner s initial decision to the extent that it is in conflict with the Commission s opinion accompanying its order of June 18, 1964, be, and it hereby is, modified and as modified is adopted as the decision of the Commission. It;" further ordered That respondents 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 the order set forth herein.