Linseed Oil," "Compound Boiled Linseed Oil," etc., together with such statements as "You are undoubtedly aware that there is an enormous shortage of animal oil, and while we do not guarantee our products to be 100 per cent pure, we feel that the same will meet your requirements for all mechanical and industrial uses," "Our oils are guaranteed for all mechanical and industrial purposes." "The market price on linseed oil and turpentine has advanced to practically the highest price ever known; for this reason we are producing a special grade of oil, and while we do not guarantee the same to be absolutely pure, we will, however, guarantee it for all painting purposes," such circular letters having a tendency and capacity of deceiving and misleading customers into believing that part of the products so offered were pure oils of the kind specified, and that the rest were special grades of special compound oils entirely proper for all industrial purposes and not mixtures of the oil specified as mineral oil, held to constitute unfair methods of competition. (The Star Provision Co., Malone Oil Co., and B. Mars, trading under the name and style of Liberty Oil Products Co., 3 F. T. C. 393.)

55. Roofing cement.-Falsely advertising in its catalogues that a liquid roof cement there offered contained no coal tar, and prominently displaying a guaranty that "We promise you that every article illustrated or priced in this book will reach you precisely as described," on the part of a mail-order house, which statement had the tendency and effect of misleading and deceiving the purchasing public, held, under the circumstances set forth, to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Montgomery Ward & Co., 3 F. T. C. 151.)

56. Electric appliances.-An Illinois corporation located at Chicago had engaged for some years in the manufacture and sale of electric appliances and had widely advertised its products throughout the country with the result that its corporate name had become well known to the general public, and a Kansas corporation of identical name located at Burlington, Kans., engaged in the manufacture of such electric appliances as belts, insoles, and other similar devices, circulated certain false and misleading advertisments in booklets, circulars, and by other agents to the effect that its electric belts were prescribed and recommended by the leading doctors of the United States; that such belts would preserve the health; that its electric insoles would keep the feet at a moderate temperature both summer and winter; that they would revitalize the blood; that it would save doctors' bills, etc., held that such conduct and such false and misleading advertising, under the circumstances set forth, constituted unfair methods of competition. (The Electric Appliance Co., of Burlington, Kans., 2 F. T. C. 335.)

57. Seeds (farm, garden, and flower).-A corporation engaged in the sale of farm, garden, and flower seed, upon the mail-order plan, with a capacity to mislead the public, falsely represented and guaranteed in its catalogues that all of its seed were of high germination, and repeatedly set forth therein that such was recleaned and free from all weed seed, particularly the seed of what are declared noxious weeds under the pure-seed laws of many States; and further falsely represented that it was careful to get supplies free from harmful seeds, that it tried to buy only the best seed, and that its "World Brand," its best grade, consisted of only the cream of the crop, was free from all foreign matter, and was as near perfect seed as could be produced, held that such false and misleading advertising, under the circumstances set forth, constituted unfair methods of competition. (A. A. Berry Seed Co., 2 F. T. C. 427.)

58. Seeds (farm and grass).—Falsely advertising, on the part of a corporation dealing in farm and grass seed, chiefly on the mailorder plan, with the effect of misleading the public and embarrassing competitors in the conduct of their business, that all of its seed was of high germination; that said seed was composed of three grades, namely, "Pinnacle Brand" (Extra Fancy); "Universal Brand" (Fancy), "Economy Brand" (Choice), and made for these brands varying claims of excellence, the fact being that samples of each brand showed on analysis weed seed and other impurities, including in many instances the seed of noxious weeds, and notwithstanding the fact that it had established no standards of purity for its three grades, analysis of the "Economy Brand" showed the samples to be the equal of "Pinnacle Brand;" held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (American Mutual Seed Co., 3 F. T. C. 177.) THE LIMIT OF PUFFING " TRANSCENDED | falsely asserts their existence, he tranWHEN ONE ENGAGES IN FALSE REPRE

SENTATIONS AND PRETENSES.

In rendering the decision of the Supreme Court, in a case, which involved a violation of section 215 of the Criminal Code, prohibiting the use of the mails to defraud, Mr. Justice McKenna said: "Mere puffing, indeed, might not be within its meaning (of this, however, no opinion need be expressed), that is, the mere exaggeration of the qualities which the article has; but when a proposed seller goes beyond that, assigns to the article qualities which it does not possess, does not simply magnify the advantages which it has, but invents advantages and

scends the limit of 'puffing' and engages in false representations and pretenses and warranting alone is not necessarily the inducement and compensation for its purchase. It is in the use to which it may be put, the purpose it may serve; and there is deception and fraud when the article is not of the character or kind represented and hence does not serve the purpose. And when the pretenses or representations or promises which execute the deception and fraud are false they become the scheme or artifice which the statute denounces." (United States v. New South Farm & Home Co., 241 U. S. 64.)

.

XVIII. SOURCE OF SUPPLY. (See ORIGIN OF GOODS).

XIX. STANDARDS AND METHODS OF DOING BUSINESS.

59. Mail-order house, building materials.-Making false and misleading statements, by means of circulars, letters, and advertisements on the part of a mail-order house dealing in lumber and building materials, that it was the only firm which made prices both ways on lumber materials, i. e., ready cut to fit and not ready cut, and that it saved its purchasers $200 to $500 per building as compared with some purchases from "regular dealers," held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Gordon Van Tyne Co., 1 F. T. C. 316.)

60. Mail-order house, seeds (farm, garden, and flower).-A corporation engaged in the sale of farm, garden, and flower seed, upon the mail-order plan, with a capacity to mislead the public, falsely stated in one catalogue that the seed laws of all States had its hearty approval; that it would not deal in seed containing noxious weed seed; that every bag of seed shipped by it bore a tag giving accurate figures of percentage of seed that would germinate, the purity thereof, and the percentage of foreign matter contained therein. It also advertised and sold various kinds of clover, alfalfa, and timothy seed, falsely representing that its clover was free from foreign seed and of strong germination; that it was "right on the ground floor in the production of the most superior seed that it is possible to grow"; that it offered "seed of only the highest quality, purity, and germination, using the skill of a lifetime in producing a quality that is superior and unequaled by any other seed house"; that it contracted for the best fields of sweet clover and was headquarters for the highest quality of seed; and further falsely advertised the percentage of alsike the most expensive seed ingredient in certain alsike and timothy, red clover and timothy, and clover, alsike, and timothy mixtures sold by it; and further falsely stated the percentage of legume crops in another grass-seed mixture sold by it as Bonanzo Mixture, held that such false and misleading advertising, under the circumstances set forth, constituted unfair methods of competition. (A. A. Berry Seed Co., 2 F. T. C. 427.)

61. Mail-order house, seeds (farm and grass).--A corporation dealing in farm and grass seed, chiefly on the mail-order plan, with the effect of misleading the public and embarrassing competitors, advertised that all of its seed was thoroughly recleaned and free from dirt and weed seed, especially the seed of noxious weeds; that it had installed in its plant cleaning machinery and equipment of standard design, by the proper and careful use of which weed seed, dirt, and other foreign matter might be removed from seed so that it would meet the requirements of pure seed laws; the fact being that such seed did contain considerable quantities of weed seed, including

noxious seed as well as dirt, etc. It further made statements with
reference to the testing of seed, claiming that--

(a) Every lot of seed sent out was subject to careful purity
and germination tests;

(b) Every bag must come up to its standard of purity and
germination before being shipped;

(c) Purchasers knew before using its seed that it would pro-
duce results;

(d) Its seed-testing laboratory was in charge of an expert
analyst; and in addition advertised that every bag of seed
shipped was tagged to show purity and germination thereof, all
of which claims were false and misleading;

held that such advertising constituted unfair methods of compe-
tition. (American Mutual Seed Co., 3 F. T. C. 177.)

62. Vacuum cleaners.-A dealer in vacuum cleaners handling most
of the different makes on the market, but with special financial inter-
est in one, failed to disclose such interest in a "Price list and rating
sheet," which it circulated among customers and prospective cus-
tomers and which gave such make the highest rating, containing
statements that its rating committee, the members of which claimed
long experience, met semimonthly, at which time all cleaners were
tested scientifically for efficiency and comparisons made on the points
of simplicity and construction, and in other ways so calculated to
create the impression that ratings were the result of frequent, expert,
and impartial examinations. After the discontinuance of the price
list or rating sheet, said dealer published and circulated among
customers and prospective customers the price list of its various
cleaners, designating by stars certain machines as machines which
he was especially interested in, but without disclosing whether such
interest was financial or otherwise, held that such acts and advertis-
ing, under the circumstances set forth, constitute unfair methods of
competition. (Vacuum Cleaner Specialty Co. (Inc.), 3 F. T. C. 377.)

XX. TRADE NAME.

63. False claims as to ownership.-A corporation in the manufac-
ture and sale of drugs, including acetyl salicylic acid, popularly
known as "Aspirin," registered the word as a general trade mark
in a large number of States, accompanying its application for regis-
tration with affidavits that it alone had the right to use the word,
and thereafter advertised generally that "Acco Aspirin," its prod
uct, was the only genuine aspirin; and further advertised that the
word was its general trade-mark, notwithstanding the fact that long
prior to such attempted appropriation thereof the word had been
continuously, openly, and notoriously applied by numerous other

manufacturers and dealers to the product acetyl salicylic acid, and the exclusive right thereof openly asserted and pressed by the successor to another company, the original patentee of the product, and the registrant of the word, held that such practice on the part of the above corporation, under the circumstances set forth, constituted an unfair method of competition. (Albany Chemical Co., 3 F. T. C. 369.)

XXI. UNPATENTED GOODS AS PATENTED.

64. Blowers, forges, and drills.-A corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of blowers, forges, and drills, circulated and displayed in its catalogues cuts of certain unpatented machines in its "four hundred" line of blowers and forges with statements that the machines were patented, and listed on it certain expired patents, thereby tending to mislead and deceive the public into believing that the machines were still protected by patents, held that such misrepresentations constituted an unfair method of competition. (Champion Blower & Forge Co., 3 F. T. C. 137.)

The making of false, misleading, and unfair statements concerning the business methods of competitors has been condemned by the courts in decrees issued in the following cases: U. S. v. CentralWest Publishing Co. (consent decree), U. S. v. Bowser & Co. (consent decree), U. S. v. National Cash Register Co. (consent decree). Decrees and judgments in Federal Antitrust Cases.

MISLEADING THE PUBLIC INTO THINKING
THEY WERE RECEIVING A DIFFERENT
GRADE OF GOODS FROM THAT ACTUALLY
OFFERED FOR SALE.

In delivering the opinion of the court in a case, which involved the use of the mails for false and fraudulent purposes,

Judge Van Deventer said: "Our conclusion is that when a business, even if otherwise legitimate, is systematically and designedly conducted upon the plan of inducing its patrons, by means of false representations, to part with their money in the belief that they are purchasing something different from, superior to, and worth more than what is actually being sold, it becomes an objectionable scheme or device within the intendment of sections 3929 and 4045, although what is being sold may approximate in commercial value the price asked and received. The difference between such scheme or device and those where nothing whatever or nothing at all equivalent in value is intended to be returned for the money obtained is one of degree only, but not of principle. Both are grounded in deceit, operate injuriously upon the public, and constitute the obtaining of money by means of false pretenses. A purchaser is entitled to receive what he is induced by the vendor's representations to believe he is ordering and paying for, and not something which he does not order and may not want at any price.” (Harris v. Rosenberger, 145 Fed. 449.)

Held that a conviction for using the mails to defraud was warranted where the defendant opened a piano store, of