opinion that if the doctrine is to be thus extended, and all persons compelled to deal solely in goods which are exactly what they are represented to be, the remedy must come from the legislature and not from the courts." [Italics ours.] (American Washboard Co. v. Saginaw Mfg. Co., 103 Fed. 281.) "Where defendant sold in interstate | thority in the books and are clear in the commerce domestic wine, artificially carbonated, under a label 'Extra Dry Champagne,' with a design and other words in French calculated to induce a purchaser to believe he was buying a foreign and not a domestic product, defendants were guilty of misbranding in violation of the pure food and drug act." (Syllabus.) (Schraubstadler et al. v. U. S., 199 Fed. 568.) IN GENERAL.-THOUGH AN ARTICLE IS SOLD In the case of the American Washboard Co. the complaint was that plaintiff, which manufactured washboards of aluminum, was injured by the defendant, which represented its washboards as aluminum although they were made of other materials. The court in denying an injunction, because the complaint did not state a cause of action, said: "It is true that in these cases (passing off) it is an important factor that the public are deceived, but it is only where this deception induces the public to buy the goods as those of complainant that a private right of action arises * * * In dismissing a bill charging unfair competition in the manufacture and sale of composition floor covering, the District Court for the District of New Jersey held that an action for unfair competition lies only when a property right of a complainant has been invaded, and the fact that defendant makes an article and sells it under a false name or designation, and thus deceives the public, does not give a right of action to another who makes the genuine article so designated, where it is not shown that defendant has represented or sold its product as that of complainant. (Armstrong Cork Co. et al. v. Ringwalt Linoleum Works, 235 Fed. 458. The Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, in 240 Fed. 1022, reversed and remanded the above case.) THE WRONGDOER NOT AFFORDED A REM- Where C. & Co. entered into a written contract with P. by which it was agreed that P. would pay C., & Co. a stated price for "Menhaden" at a certain wharf, and where P. sold these menhaden under false labels as mackerel and thereby deceived the public, it was held in an action against C. & Co. for failure to deliver the menhaden that the defense of public policy did not proceed so much upon the idea of relief to the defendant as protection to the public, and it is immaterial that the illegal practice was unknown to the defendant at the time of the alleged breach of contract. The law will not afford a remedy to the wrongdoer in a scheme the purpose of which is to deceive and defraud the public, whether the party against whom the remedy is sought is himself innocent or guilty of such participation in such a fraud. (Church et al. v. Proctor, 66 Fed. 240.) THE LANGUAGE USED ON THE LABEL IS TO BE GIVEN THE MEANING ORDINARILY CONVEYED BY IT TO THOSE TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED, in determining whether a food or drug is misbranded under the food and drug act. (Hall v. U. S., 267 Fed. 795.) MISREPRESENTATION. [See also Advertising falsely and misleadingly; Confusion; Disparagement; Misbranding; Passing off; Simulation; Unfair competition.] I. Business methods of competitors, 1-2. II. Goods of competitors, 3-4. III. One's own business, 5-9. IV. Old, used, or reconstructed goods, 10-13. VI. Prices, 20-23. VII. Miscellaneous, 24-29. I. BUSINESS METHODS OF COMPETITORS. 1. Yeast manufacturers.—Misrepresenting to the trade, on the part of a manufacturer selling approximately 90 per cent of the compressed yeast used by bakers of the United States, the methods of its competitors in business, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Fleischmann Co., 1 F. T. C. 119, 120.) of 2. Grocery brokers.-Making, by certain brokers, for the purpose preventing a corporation competing with their customers from purchasing from manufacturers and manufacturers' agents, false statements concerning said corporation and its plan and manner of doing business, held, under the circumstances set forth, to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Western Sugar Refinery et al., 2 F. T. C. 151.) II. GOODS OF COMPETITORS. cor 3. Storage measuring devices.-Representing, on the part of a poration engaged in the manufacture and sale of outfits and devices for the storage, handling, and automatic measuring of oils, gasoline, etc., to its own customers and to customers of competitors, falsely and erroneously, with full knowledge of such falsehood and error, and for the purpose of misleading the public and injuring competitors, that certain outfits and devices manufactured and sold by it were manufactured and sold by its competitors, held, under the circumstances set forth, to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Wayne Oil Tank & Pump Co., 1 F. T. C. 259.) 4. Automobile fans.-False representation to the trade, on the part of a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of fans. for automobiles, motor trucks, and tractors, the largest output of which was of the cup-and-cone type, in competition with a concern similarly engaged, the largest output of which was the fan of the roller-bearing type, that the roller-bearing type of fans costs less to manufacture than the cup-and-cone type and does not work satisfactorily, held, under the circumstances set forth, to constitute an unfair method of competition. (The Oakes Co., 3 F. T. C. 36.) III. ONE'S OWN BUSINESS. 5. Vacuum cleaners.-Falsely representing, by a dealer in cleaning and sweeping devices, that it was a vacuum-cleaner expert and impartial advisor, soliciting inquiries from the public concerning the merits of different kinds of cleaners, the fact being that it was interested in two particular cleaners, and disparaging competition cleaners, and recommending those in which it was especially interested, held to constitute unfair methods of competition. (Muenzen Specialty Co., 1 F. T. C. 30.) 6. Talking machines-Status of business dealings.--A corporation engaged in the purchase and sale to retailers of talking machines, as a part of its sales plan or scheme and acting through its agents, falsely, fraudulently, and misleadingly secured the signatures of customers to certain instruments which they believed to be merely orders instead of contracts, and when customers sought to cancel their orders the said corporation stated to them that such action was impossible because commissions had been paid agents and printing charges incurred, which statements were false; and further the said corporation acting in collusion with and using the name of a third party wrote such customers that the promissory notes were now in the hands of an innocent third party for value and that payment thereof was demanded under penalty of suit, thereby enforcing the provisions of the said printed instruments and deceiving customers into acquiescing therein, the facts being that the notes in the hands of said party were subject to the defenses by the maker as though they had remained in the hands of the payee, held, that such practices, under the circumstances set forth, constituted unfair methods of competition. (Boston Piano & Music Co. 3 F. T. C. 168.) 7. Same-Quality, price, terms of payment, and conditions under which sales were made.-A corporation engaged in the purchase and sale to retailers of talking machines, as a part of its sales plan or scheme and acting through its agents, misrepresented— (a) Kind or quality of machines; (b) Their purchase price and terms of payment; (c) The amount, quality, and character of advertising matter and advertising service furnished; and (d) Terms and conditions under which the machines would be taken back; held, that such practices, under the circumstances set forth, constituted unfair methods of competition. (Boston Piano & Music Co. 3 8. Same-Terms and conditions under which goods were purchased.- (a) Said printed instruments were merely orders for machines (b) Its advertising and service campaign would of itself sell the (c) Its agents would personally canvas retail merchants' trade (d) Customers who failed to sell machines so ordered, their (e) Customers took no risk and could not lose on the transac- held, that such practices, under the circumstances set forth, consti- 9. Automobile manufacturers.—A corporation organized for the IV. OLD, USED, OR RECONSTRUCTED GOODS. 10. Motion-picture films.-A concern engaged in purchasing, leas- 11. Same.-Acquiring, on the part of a concern engaged in the which pictures had theretofore been exhibited throughout the United States and become well known under their respective titles to the motion-picture theater-going public, and exploiting and exhibiting such old pictures with new titles without indicating or notifying the motion-picture theater-going public that they had been retitled, held, under the circumstances set forth, to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Joseph Simmonds, doing business under the trade name and style of W. H. Productions Co. 2 F. T. C. 11.) 12. Automobile tires.-Representing and selling rebuilt and reconstructed automobile tires without advising purchasers that they were not new, but were composed in part of used or reclaimed material, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Wm. H. Batcheller, Geo. Batcheller, and Akron Tire Co. (Inc.), 2 F. T. C. 119.) 13. Rope manufacturer.-Falsely representing, on the part of a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of rope, that rope restranded from yarns of old and used hawsers, which so nearly resembled new rope that it could only be distinguished by those skilled in the art of rope making, was made from new and unused fiber and was not restranded from yarn taken from old and used rope, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Federal Rope Co. (Inc.), 2 F. T. C. 327.) V. PATENTS AND THEIR INFRINGEMENT. 14. Stain remover.-Falsely claiming on the part of a manufacturer and vendor of a stain remover, that its preparation was covered by patent, and falsely charging that the preparations of competitors were infringements of such alleged patents, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Gartside Iron Rust Soap Co., 1 F. T. C. 310.) 15. Machinery.—An agent of a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of portable conveying machinery, while attempting to make sales, represented to customers and prospective customers of the corporation's competitors, without such corporation's knowledge, that suit at law was pending which had been instituted by the corporation against one of its competitors for infringement of a patent owned and controlled by the corporation, when in fact suit referred to had been dismissed some three years before and no appeal prayed for or taken from such decision, nor any further proceeding instituted for the alleged infringement of said patent either by the corporation or its predecessor, held that such representations, under the circumstances set forth, constitute an unfair method of competition. (Brown Portable Conveying Machinery Co., 2 F. T. C. 143.) 16. Invert sugar sirup.-A corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of invert sugar sirup, informed a competitor that it |