FALSE AND MISLEADING PRACTICES. [See Advertising falsely and misleadingly; Confusion; Misrepresentation; Passing off; FALSE PRETENSES. 1. Information concerning competitor obtained surreptitiously.- FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINING INFORMA- entered in U. S. v. Burroughs Adding PETITOR was condemned in a decree Federal Antitrust Cases, 457. FICTITIOUS MARKING OF GOODS. [See Advertising falsely and misleadingly; Misbranding; Misrepresentation.] FORCING GOODS ON DEALERS. 1. Shipping without orders to customers and competitors' custo- (a) The extension of long time credits, and by (b) Guaranteeing the resale of such consignments and the held, that such acts constituted an unfair method of competition. FREE GOODS. [See Subsidizing business; Subsidizing salesmen.] FULL LINE FORCING. [See also Tying or exclusive contracts or leases.] 1. Using one product to force purchase of another. The general general selling and distributing agents for a manufacturer producing 45 per cent of the jute bagging used in baling cotton, required purchasers of cotton ties to purchase therewith a corresponding amount of cotton bagging and refused to sell cotton ties unless the corresponding amount of bagging was purchased, held, that such use of one product to force the purchase of other products to the exclusion of the goods of competitors constituted an unfair method of competition. (The Gratz Case, 1 F. T. C. 249.) 1 F. T. C. 249. (Federal Trade Commission v. Gratz, 258 Fed. 314, 317.) The selling or leasing of a certain line of goods only on condition that other lines of goods be purchased or leased from the same vendor, has been condemned by the courts in decrees in the following cases: U. S. v. General Electric Co. et al. (consent decree); U. S. v. American Tobacco Co. (court decree), (221 U. S. 106); U. S. v. American Coal Products Co. (consent decree); U. S. v. United Shoe Machinery Co. et al., 227 Fed. 507. "And we discover no evidence to sup- | Ward, J., reversing commission's order in port the finding in paragraph 2, that the respondents 'adopted and practiced the policy of refusing to sell steel ties to those merchants and dealers who wished to buy them from them unless such merchants and dealers would also buy from them a corresponding amount of jute bagging.' It is the natural and prevailing custom in the trade to sell ties and bagging together, just as one witness testified it is to sell cups and saucers together. Such evidence as there is of a refusal to sell is a refusal to sell at all to certain persons with whom the respondents had previous unsatisfactory relations and a refusal to sell ties without bagging at the opening of the market in 1916 and 1917 when there was fear that owing to scarcity of ties and the prospect of large crops, the marketing of the cotton crop might be endangered by speculators creating a corner in ties." The restriction, by making the prices of its goods so high as to be unprofitable, of trade to those purchasers who decline to refrain from dealing in goods of competitors, not violative of the antitrust act. (Whitwell v. Continental Tobacco et al., 125 Fed. 455.) GRATUITIES OR GIFTS. [See Bribery; Subsidizing business.] GOVERNMENT AGENCIES FALSELY REPRESENTED. [See Advertising falsely and misleadingly.-XII. Orders and rulings of government bodies.] HARASSING COMPETITORS. [See also Disparagement; Espionage; Intimidation; Interference with business.] I. Mail-order houses. (a) By trade journal, 1. (b) By retail dealers, 2. II. Salesmen and representatives, 3-4. III. Miscellaneous, 5-7. I. MAIL ORDER HOUSES, (a) BY TRADE JOURNAL. 1. Requests for information, estimates, etc., not in good faith by trade journal.-Urging, encouraging, and suggesting, on the part of a corporation engaged in the publication of a trade journal, held out and represented as the official organ of the retail lumber and building supplies trade in certain States, and on the part of the editor and manager thereof, through articles published therein, that retail dealers in lumber and building material write, or cause to be written, and send to mail-order concerns competing with said retailers, requests for estimates, and for catalogues, printed matter, and special information intended only for bona fide customers and bona fide prospective customers, held to constitute unfair methods of competition. (Botsford Lumber Co. et al., 1 F. T. C. 60.) (b) BY RETAIL DEALERS. 2. Requests for information, estimates, etc., not in good faith by retail dealers. Writing and sending, and causing to be written and sent, systematically, on a large scale, and in bad faith, on the part of a number of concerns engaged in the sale of lumber and lumber products at retail, to mail-order concerns engaged in the same line of business, requests for estimates of kind, quantity, and prices of lumber and building material, and for catalogues, printed matter, and special information intended only for bona fide customers and bona fide prospective customers; and furnishing to the editor and manager of a trade journal information tending, if published, to encourage retail dealers to make, or cause to be made, such requests of mail-order concerns, held, to constitute unfair methods of competition. (Botsford Lumber Co. et al., 1 F. T. C. 60.) II. SALESMEN AND REPRESENTATIVES. 3. Hindering and embarrassing their salesmen or representatives.Occasionally following competitors' representatives, on the part of a manufacturer selling approximately 90 per cent of the compressed yeast used by bakers in the United States with the object of hindering and embarrassing them in the transaction of their business, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Fleischmann Co., 1 F. T. C. 119, 120.) 4. Hindering and embarrassing their salesmen.—Systematically following from place to place, and causing to be followed, on the part of a number of concerns engaged in the sale of lumber and lumber products at retail, the salesmen of mail-order concerns, competing with said retailers, with the object and effect of hindering and embarrassing them in their business, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Botsford Lumber Co. et al., 1 F. T. C. 60.) III. MISCELLANEOUS. 5. Interfering with competitors sources of information.-Urging, encouraging, and suggesting, on the part of a corporation engaged in the publication of a trade journal, held out and represented as the official organ of the retail lumber and building supplies trade in certain States, and on the part of the editor and manager of such periodical, through the medium thereof, the circulation of information calculated to cause dealers in lumber and building materials to use their influence with banks, credit reporting agencies and others, to induce them to delay in making reports, to fail in reporting or to make misleading reports to competitors, held to constitute unfair methods of competition. (Botsford Lumber Co., et al., 1 F. T. C. 60.) 6. False accusation of disloyalty to Government.-An individual engaged in the business of selling, leasing, exploiting, and exhibiting motion-picture films and advertising matter, falsely accused a motion-picture exhibitor who refused to lease and exhibit a motionpicture film known as "Mothers of Liberty," because a large portion of the picture had already been shown, of being disloyal to the Government and a German sympathizer, held that such false accusations, under the circumstances set forth, constituted an unfair method of competition. (The Royal Cinema Corporation, The Mothers of Liberty Picture Co., and the Monopole Pictures Co., 2 F. T. C. 88.) 7. Colliding with and damaging trucks and autos.-Wilfully causing, on the part of a manufacturer, its trucks to collide with automobiles of its competitors, such collisions being calculated and designed to damage and so damaged such automobiles as to hinder, delay, and embarrass said competitors in their business, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (American Agricultural Chemical Co. and the Brown Co. (Inc.), 1 F. T. C. 226.) MALICIOUSLY ANNOYING AND VEXING MAY "One may not be enjoined from doing lawful acts to protect and enforce his rights of property or of person, unless his acts to that effect are clearly shown to be done unnecessarily, not for the purpose of preserving and enforcing his rights but maliciously to vex, annoy, and injure another." (Syllabus.) (Kryptoc Co. v. Sted Lens Co., 190 Fed. 767.) (See also Kelly v. Ypsilanti Dress Stay Manufacturing Co., 44 Fed. 19. Everson et al. . Spalding, 150 Fed. 517; Econo mist Furnace Co. v. Wrought-Iron Range Co. et al., 86 Fed. 1010.) The warning, harassing, or intimidating by means of personal acts, letters, or advertisements, of a competitor in the sale, shipment, and trade of his goods, except as might be lawfully done for the protection of his own property rights, was condemned by a decree of the U. S. District Court in the following case: U. S. v. New Departure Manufacturing Co. (consent decree) (204 Fed. 107). Decrees and Judgments in Federal Antitrust Cases, 471. IMITATION. [See Adulteration; Passing off; Simulation.] INFRINGEMENT SUITS, FALSE THREATS OF. [See Advertising falsely and misleadingly; Harassing competitors; Intimidation; Interference with competitors.] INTERFERENCE WITH COMPETITOR'S BUSINESS. [See also Blacklisting; Boycotting; Bribery; Enticing Competitor's employees; Harassing competitors; Intimidation; Passing off; Tampering with competitor's goods.] 1. Improperly displacing samples or product.—Occasionally removing and attempting to remove on the part of a manufacturer selling approximately 90 per cent of the compressed yeast used by bakers of the United States, from the possession of bakers, trial samples of yeast given them by competitors, by (1) substituting or attempting to substitute its yeast therefor, and (2) by purchasing or attempting to purchase the same; and occasionally purchasing or attempting to purchase, substituting, or offering to substitute, its yeast for competitor's yeast bought by and in the possession of bakers, held to constitute unfair methods of competition. (Fleischmann Co., 1 F. T. C. 119, 120.) 2. Tampering with competitor's goods.-Tampering with and knowingly using for demonstration purposes, on the part of a dealer in cleaning and sweeping devices, improperly adjusted vacuum cleaners of competitors, while properly adjusting cleaners in which interested, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Muenzen Specialty Co., 1 F. T. C. 30.) INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS OF A COM PETITOR. The interference by combination or agreement for the purpose of preventing a competitor from buying from or selling to whom he may desire has been condemned by decrees in the following cases: U. S. v. Philadelphia Jobbers Con fectioners Association et al. (consent decree), 397; U. S. v. National Wholesale Jewelers Association et al. (consent decree) 509.-Decrees and Judgments in Federal Antitrust Cases. (See also Economist Furnace Co. v. Wrought-Iron Range Co., 86 Fed. 1010.) INTIMIDATION. [See also Blacklisting; Boycotting; Coercion; Cutting off supplies; Harassing competitors.] I. Threatened infringement suits, 1-6. II. Threats to withdraw patronage, 7-8. I. THREATENED INFRINGEMENT SUIT. 1. Against competitors and their customers.-Threats against competitors and their customers, on the part of a manufacturer and vendor of a stain remover, to bring suits for infringement of its alleged patent, such threats not being made in good faith intending to bring such suits, but for the purpose of injuring said competitors and of intimidating them, their agents, customers, and prospective customers, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Gartside Iron Rust Soap Co., 1. F. T. C. 310.) 105756-22- -8 |