general appearance of the advertising matter of competitors, and then published advertising matter containing false and misleading statements calculated and designed to confuse and mislead the trade and the public and to cause the belief that the maps so offered were those of competitors, held that such appropriation and use of advertising matter, under the circumstances set forth, constituted unfair methods of competition. (Geographical Publishing Co., 1 F. T. C. 235.) ADVERTISING GOODS OF ONE MANUFAC- "The Ford Motor Co. held entitled to enjoin a dealer in auto parts adopted for use on its automobiles, but not manufactured by it, from advertising them as "Ford" articles, and issuing a publication entitled "Ford Dealers," thus in dicating dealings in articles of Ford manufacture, since, while such dealer had a right to inform the public that he is manufacturing articles suitable for use on such machines, in common acceptance the word "Ford" indicates articles manufactured by such company." (Syllabus.) (Ford Motor Co. v. Wilson, 223 Fed. 808.) XV. PATENT INFRINGEMENT. 38. Claim falsely made.-Falsely claiming, by means of letters, circulars, and advertisements circulated among competitors and their customers, on the part of a manufacturer and vendor of a stain remover, that its preparation was covered by patent and that the preparations of competitors were infringements of such alleged patent, held, under the circumstances, to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Gartside Iron Rust Soap Co., 1 F. T. C. 310.) XVI. PRICE OF GOODS. 39. By mail-order house.-A corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of lumber and building materials and belonging to the class usually referred to as "Catalogue or mail order houses," distinguished from so-called "Regular dealers," falsely represented through advertisements and circular letters that it saves for all purchasers of its products 25 to 50 per cent on the cost of such commodities, and that builders, contractors, and carpenters can and do reduce the cost of building one-half by purchasing its materials, held that such advertising, under the circumstances set forth, constituted an unfair method of competition. (Chicago Mill Works Supply Co., 1 F. T. C. 488.) 40. Same.-Making false and misleading statements, by means of catalogues, advertisements, etc., on the part of a mail-order house dealing in lumber and building materials that it gave its customers the benefit of a mill or manufacturer's price, because of the fact that its lumber products were of its own manufacture, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Gordon Van Tyne, 1 F. T. C. 316.) 105756-22---4 41. Conveying impression of advantageous prices by special sales.So advertising annual and special sales of vacuum cleaners as to convey the impression of an unusual or specially advantageous offer, the fact being that the advertiser's prices during sales were the same as those obtained at other times, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Muenzen Specialty Co., 1 F. T. C. 30.) 42. Representing prices to be below cost.-Publishing and circulating advertisements, on the part of a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of candy, falsely stating and holding out that it was selling and offering to sell its production at prices below cost, when in fact it was selling at a profit, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (E. J. Brach & Sons, 1 F. T. C. 186.) 43. False statements as to prices charged agents and representatives.Falsely representing through advertisements and circular letters by a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of lumber and building materials and belonging to the class usually referred to as "Catalogue or mail order houses," as distinguished from so-called "Regular dealers," that its agents, one or more of whom are located in each town or locality, are charged the same price for materials as are charged its other customers, held, under the circumstances set forth, to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Chicago Mill Works Supply Co., 1 F. T. C. 488.) 44. Misleading statements as to competitors' prices through “combination order" plan.—An individual engaged in the sale of groceries by mail in "combination orders" only, price of which did not include cost of transportation to the residence of the purchaser, and in which orders the number of items and the quantity of each, but not always the quality and kind, were specified with certainty, advertised that he was selling his "combination orders" and each item thereof at prices considerably less than those charged by his competitors, when, in fact, such orders and some individual items thereof, could have been purchased from his competitors at prices considerably less than those charged by him, including the cost of transportation to the residence of the purchaser, held that such false and misleading advertising, under the circumstances set forth, constituted an unfair method of competition. (J. B. Cohen, trading under the name and style of Cole-Conrad Co., 2 F. T. C. 188.) 45. Misrepresenting own prices through combination sales plan.Advertising on the part of a mail-order house that it was able to sell. sugar at lower prices than its competitors, because of its large purchases and the quick moving of its stock, the fact being, however, that it sold such sugar at less than cost, and that its offer to sell and its sales, as aforesaid, were made upon the condition that certain specified amounts of other groceries be purchased therewith at a price sufficient to give it a profit on the combined sale, held to consti tute an unfair method of competition. (Sears, Roebuck & Co., 1 F. T. C. 163.) 46. Same.-Advertising "combination orders," so assembled that each contained one or more staple articles of well-known quality and price, and other articles not well known to the general public constituting the greater part of the order, by an individual engaged in the sale of groceries by mail, in such a manner as to mislead the purchasing public to believe that each and every item was sold at a definite price and that the less well-known articles were sold at proportionately as low prices as the staple and well-known articles were represented to be sold, which prices were below cost, when in fact such orders were sold at prices to afford a profit on the sale as a whole, held, under the circumstances set forth, to constitute an unfair method of competition. (J. B. Cohen, trading as Cole-Conrad Co., 2 F. T. C. 188.) 47. Same.-A corporation engaged in the sale of groceries by mail, exclusively in "combination orders," composed of one or more well-known staple articles and others not so well-known to customers having no knowledge of its costs and profits, in advertising said orders set forth prices of the different items as "our wholesale price to you,' which prices for the well-known staple articles were less than cost but for the others were sufficiently in excess thereof to afford a satisfactory profit on the order as a whole, and overstated the retail prices ordinarily asked for the different items composing the various orders; which method of advertising had the effect of deceiving and misleading the public into believing that it was selling all its items on the basis suggested by the prices assigned to well-known staple articles, and that it was selling groceries at prices less than those charged by competitors, held that such false and misleading advertising, under the circumstances set forth, constituted unfair methods of competition. (Commonwealth Co., 3 F. T. C. 46.) 48. Same. A firm in the sale of groceries by mail, exclusively in combination orders, to customers with no knowledge of its costs and profits, in advertising said orders set forth prices of the different items as "our wholesale price," which prices for the well-known staple articles were less than cost but for the others were sufficiently in excess thereof to afford a satisfactory profit on the entire order and equaled or exceeded the usual retail prices of the order as a whole, and further advertised that for $1 the customers could secure a "get acquainted order," as specified and offering "Bargains not available elsewhere, including sugar at 3¢ per pound * * * flour, $7.00 per barrel and many others"-prices far less than wholesale cost, when in fact it sold none of these articles separately at such prices but only in combination as stated above, thereby deceiving customers and the public, held that such false and misleading advertising, under the circumstances set forth, constituted unfair methods of competi tion. (L. I. Wolper and W. B. Wolper, copartners trading under the name and style of Errant Knight Co., Louis Grocery Co., and Ira Lester Co., 3 F. T. C. 95.) 49. Same. The advertising by a corporation engaged in the sale of groceries by mail, exclusively in combination orders, so assembled that each assortment contained one or more items, quality and retail price of which were well known to the purchasing public, and other items, the greater part of the assortment, the quality and retail price of which were not well known, that it was selling sugar at 4 cents per pound, flour at $7.98 a barrel, Fels naptha soap at 2 cents a bar, and Quaker Oats at 4 cents a package, the fact being that it sold none of the articles in the assortment at the prices specified, except in combination orders, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Big Four Grocery Co., 3 F. T. C. 338.) 50. Misrepresenting prices by falsely representing nature of business.—— A corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of gum paper, known as "Sealing tape," expended annually a substantial sum of money in advertising; thereafter, an individual engaged as a "converter" in the sale of toilet paper and paper bags adopted the same name as the corporation, and advertised and misrepresented the prices quoted by him as being f. o. b. warehouses in three cities named, in two of which he had no warehouses, intending by so advertising and holding himself out to be a manufacturer to mislead the public into believing that by purchasing thereof it would eliminate the middleman's profit, held that such false and misleading advertising, under the circumstances set forth, constituted an unfair method of competition. (H. Norwood Ewing, doing business under the firm name of Liberty Paper Co., 3 F. T. C. 13.) UNFAIR COMPETITION TO MISREPRESENT A finding by the Federal Trade Commission that a mail-order house doing an interstate business was guilty of unfair competition in advertising that it was able to sell sugar at lower prices than its competitors because of its large purchases and the quick moving of its stocks, held to be warranted, the fact being that such prices were made only upon condition that certain specified amounts of other groceries be purchased therewith at prices which were sufficient to give it a profit on the combined sale. (Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 258 Fed. 307.) XVII. QUALITY AND USES OF GOODS. 51. Storage batteries.-A corporation engaged for years in the sale of storage batteries for automobile ignition as "Universal Storage Battery Co." and afterwards "The Universal Battery Co.," acquired an extensive good will in the use of the word "universal" as applied to such storage batteries; thereafter two competitors, chiefly representing the same interests, adopted the names, respectively, of "Universal Battery Service Co." and "Universal Battery Service 52. Linseed oil and turpentine.--The publication in circular letters 53. Linseed oil substitutes.-Advertising, on the part of an individual 54. Linseed oil substitutes, paints, etc.-Advertising and offering, |