CONVERSION.

[See also Appropriation.]

1. Taking and using goods belonging to a competitor.--Accepting
and converting to his own use, on the part of an individual engaged
in the business of buying, selling, and shipping iron and steel scrap
in direct competition with a corporation having a similar name, of
iron and steel scrap theretofore purchased by and consigned to said
corporation, with full knowledge that such competing corporation
was the consignee, held to constitute an unfair method of competi-
tion. (Jacob Lanski, 2 F. T. C. 302.)

COPYING ANOTHER'S ADVERTISEMENTS.

[See Appropriation.]

CUTTING OFF COMPETITOR'S ADVERTISING MEDIUM.
1. Falsely representing financial condition of competitor.-Endeavor-
ing, on the part of a manufacturer of devices used by printers to
produce ruled lines for tabulation, to induce trade journals to refuse

a competitor's advertisements, by means of false and misleading statements relative to said competitor's financial condition and standing, held, under the circumstances set forth, to constitute unfair method of competition. (Chicago Linotabler Co., 1 F. T. C. 110.) CUTTING OFF COMPETITOR'S SUPPLIES.

[See also: Boycott; Conspiracy; Refusal to sell.]

1. Interfering on the part of retailer with the supply of mail-order concerns.-Inducing and endeavoring to induce, on the part of a corporation engaged in the publication of a trade journal, manufacturers and wholesalers of lumber and building materials to refrain from and to discontinue furnishing supplies of lumber and building materials to mail-order concerns dealing in the same, in competition with retailers, by means of actual and implied threats that retail dealers should withdraw their patronage, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Botsford Lumber Co. et al., 1 F. T. C. 60.)

2. Same. Furnishing 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 the editor and manager of a trade journal, the names of manufacturers and wholesalers who sold to mail-order concerns competing with said retailers, for the purpose of enabling him to interfere with the free purchase of supplies by them, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Botsford Lumber Co. et al., 1 F. T. C. 60.)

3. Same.-Inducing and endeavoring to induce 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, manufacturers and wholesalers of lumber and building materials to refrain · from selling lumber and building materials to mail-order concerns, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Botsford Lumber Co. et al., 1 F. T. C. 60.)

4. By exclusive contracts with vendors thereof.-Purchasing gummed sealing tape on the part of a manufacturer of gummed-tape moistening machines from the manufacturers of such tape upon the condition or understanding that they should not sell the same to any of his competitors, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (National Binding Machine Co., 1 F. T. C. 44.)

5. Paying prohibitive prices for raw material.—Where, in order to punish a competitor which had begun to purchase raw material in the territory in which they had been operating, concerns engaged in the rendering business in one State, acting through a corporation organized by them for that purpose, paid prohibitive and unwarranted prices for materials in another State, where said competitor was doing business, with resulting loss of money to said competitor

and to its successor to which it was forced by said loss to sell, held,
that such practices constituted an unfair method of competition.
(United Rendering Co. et al., 3 F. T. C. 284.)

6. Wrongfully retaining possession of competitor's goods.-Willful
failure, on the part of a corporation dealing in groceries at whole-
sale, to inform a competing concern, which was also engaged in retail-
ing, of the arrival of a much needed shipment in a "pool" car, con-
signed to it by a manufacturer, although it promptly informed other
concerns whose shipments arrived in said car; and keeping the ship-
ment belonging to such competitor in its possession more than a
month, meanwhile protesting to the manufacturer against his selling
directly to said competitor and trying to secure a jobber's commission
on the transaction, held, under the circumstances set forth, to consti-
tute an unfair method of competition. (Raymond Bros. Clark Co.,
3. F. T. C. 295.)

PERSUASION OR OTHER MEANS NOT UN-
FAIR COMPETITION.

The interference by a combination of
retail dealers in merchandise with the
complainant's right to buy goods, by per-
suasion or other means exerted against
the sellers, is held not to constitute unfair
competition by intimidation or coercion.
(Montgomery Ward & Co. v. South Dakota
Retail Merchants & Hardware Dealers
Assn. et al., 150 Fed. 413.)

BOYCOTTING AND THREATENING TO BOY-
COTT THOSE SELLING, A VIOLATION OF
THE ANTITRUST ACT.

"A combination between members of a
tile dealers' association to exclude trade
competitors from membership and to
make it impossible for them to obtain tiles
or tile setters by refusing to buy tiles from
manufacturers, the most of whom are

located in other States, who sold to such
competitors, and by an agreement with
the tile setters' union that the latter
would not allow its members to work for
nonmembers of the association was held
to directly affect interstate commerce in
violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act."
(Syllabus.) (Belfi et al. v. U. S., 259
Fed. 822.)

See also decree entered in U. S. v.
Associated Bill-posters and Distributors,
p. 373. Decrees and Judgments in Fed-
eral Antitrust Cases.

"An agreement or combination be-
tween a manufacturer of certain articles
and the wholesalers or distributors han-
dling the same, not to sell any of such arti-
cles to a retail dealer, held unlawful as a
restraint of trade in violation of the Anti-
trust Act." (Syllabus.) (Victor Talking
Machine Co. v. Kemeny, 271 Fed. 810.)

DECEPTION.

[See Confusion; Misrepresentation; Passing off; Simulation.]

DEFAMATION.

[See Disparagement.]

DIRECT SELLING, PREVENTION OF.

[See Blacklisting; Boycotting; Refusal to sell.]

DISCRIMINATION.

[See also, Blacklisting; Boycotting; Clayton Act; Price discrimination; Rebates; Refusal to sell.]

1. Refusing membership to trade association. Declining, on the part of the members of an unincorporated association engaged in the distribution and sale of harness and saddlery goods at wholesale, to admit to membership in the wholesale association jobbers or wholesalers who did any retail business, and preventing and endeavoring to prevent manufacturers from selling to such jobbers, though allowing its own members at times to do a retail business, held, under the circumstances set forth, to constitute an unfair method of competition. (The Wholesale Saddlery Association of the United States and The National Harness Manufacturers Association of the United States, 1 F. T. C. 335.)

DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN CUSTOMERS

AS TO SERVICE DISCOUNTS AND REBATES

was condemned in a decree of the United States district court in U. S. v. Great

Lakes Towing Co., 253 (217 Fed. 656).Decrees and Judgments in Federal Antitrust Cases.

DISPARAGEMENT.

[See Misrepresentation.]

1. Falsely and misleadingly representing competitor's affiliations. Falsely and misleadingly stating, on the part of a mail-order house dealing in lumber and building materials, that certain of its competitors were members of a lumber trust which fixed and maintained excessive and unreasonable prices, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Gordon Van Tyne Co., 1 F. T. C. 316.)

2. Same. False representations, on the part of 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," through advertisements and circulars letters, that certain competitors, the "regular dealers," were members of a lumber trust, and by implication that such competitors fixed and maintained prices, held, under the circumstances set forth, to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Chicago Mill Works Supply Co., 1 F. T. C. 488.)

3. False and misleading statements as to financial responsibility of competitors. Circulating false and misleading statements, on the part of a manufacturer and vendor of a stain remover, to the effect that certain competitors were financially irresponsible, held to be an

unfair method of competition. (Gartside Iron Rust Soap Co.,
1 F. T. C. 310.)

4. Same. Making false and injurious statements to prospective
customers concerning the reliability and financial condition of manu-
facturers of competitive vacuum cleaners, held, under the circum-
stances set forth, to constitute an unfair method of competition.
(Muenzen Specialty Co., 1 F. T. C. 30.)

5. Falsely and injuriously representing quality of competitor's
goods.-Making false and injurious statements to prospective cus-
tomers concerning the material of which competitor's vacuum
cleaners were constructed, held, under the circumstances set forth,
to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Muenzen Specialty
Co., 1 F. T. C. 30.)

6. False statements as to efficiency, etc., of competitors' goods.-
Making false and injurious statements, on the part of a dealer in
vacuum cleaners handling most of the different makes on the market,
but with special financial interest in one, to prospective customers
concerning the value, efficiency, and wearing qualities of competi-
tors' cleaners and also disparaging their makers, held, under the cir-
cumstances set forth, to constitute an unfair method of competi-
tion. (Vacuum Cleaners Specialty Co. (Inc.), 3 F. T. C. 377.)

7. Depreciating value and worth of competitor's goods.-A corpora-
tion 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,
manufactured and offered to the trade a fan similar to competitors
at a lower price not in good faith for the purpose of sale, but solely
to depreciate the value of its competitor's fan and induce the trade
and the public to believe that said competitor was selling its fan at
more than a fair price, held that such course of conduct constituted
unfair competition. (The Oakes Co., 3 F. T. C. 36.)

8. False and misleading representations as to the justice and honesty
of competitor.—Advertising, on the part of a mail-order house, in
such a manner as to lead the public to believe that its competitors
do not deal justly, fairly, and honestly with their customers, to wit,
that they charge more than a fair price for their sugar, held to con-
stitute an unfair method of competition. (Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
1 F. T. C. 163.)

9. False and disparaging statements of competitor's business.—
Publishing false and disparaging statements and criticisms of said
competitor and its course of business, together with letters of said.
competitor procured through its customers; all of which was done
with the intent and effect of deceiving and confusing the public and