« ForrigeFortsett »
given a black eye, some of it deservedly so. The amount of weighting which is used to-day has been considerably decreased.
Mr. DEWALT. Now, stop right there. Has that been cured by the provisions of the Rogers bill or the Barkley bill ?
Mr. CHENEY. If anybody attempted to sell their merchandise as other than it was, they could be directly prosecuted under that bill; yes, sir.
Mr. DEWALT. What was the next complaint ? Mr. CHENEY. Well, some cotton manufacturers, one man in particular, who was selling a material as a guaranteed sun-fast silk which did not have a particle of silk in it.
Mr. DEWALT. Would that also be cured by the provisions of the Barkley bill or the Rogers bill?
Mr. CHENEY. It would. Mr. DEWALT. Let me ask another question now: Was that confined to only one particular instance, or is it done pretty generally in the trade?
Mr. CHENEY. Here is a copy of the complaints. You will see that there are quite a number of them.
The CHAIRMAN. Hand one of those to the stenographer and we will have it incorporated in the hearings.
(The paper referred to follows:)
PETITION TO ENJOIN MISBRANDING.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
The Silk Association of America, complainants, v. A. Theo. Abbott & Co., Charles Maxwell Co. (Inc.), Goldin Bros., Kaplin & Goldblatt, Henry Myer Thread Manufacturing Co., The Thread Mills Co., Circle Cilk Co., American Thread Co., Kerr Thread Co., Amherst Manufacturing Co., and Western Thread Co., respondents.
Austin, McLanahan & Merritt, attorneys for petitioner, 135 Broadway, New York City. To the honorable Federal Trade Commission of the United States:
Your petitioner, the Silk Association of America, respectfully shows as follows:
1. The Silk Association of America is, and has been since 1876, a membership corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, and was not organized for profit and never has engaged in business for profit; that your petitioner is authorized to file this petition with your honorable commission on behalf of its members for the purpose of securing protection for its said members and the public from the unfair methods of competition hereinafter set forth.
2. That the objects of your petitioner are as set forth in its certificate of incorporation, to wit:
"The objects of the association shall be for the purpose of promoting the advancement and prosperity of the silk interest in the United States more effectually by the increase of information, by the interchange of ideas, by harmonious action, by the development of industrial art, and by all other proper and appropriate means.”
3. That your petitioner has a membership of about 300 persons, firms, or corporations, nearly all of which are engaged in the business of manufacturing, working upon, or selling silk goods or merchandise either as merchants or manufacturers, and that most of said members are located and have their principal offices in one of the States of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, or Connecticut, with sales agencies in other States of the United States, and that each and every one of said members of said association is engaged in interstate trade and commerce in the purchase or sale of silk merchandise, and that said products of one or more members of your petitioner are sold to customers in every State and trade center of the United States, and the combined interstate sales of silk merchandise of said members of your petitioner average $200,000,000 yearly.
4. That the membership of your petitioner consists principally of manufacturers of and dealers in dress silks, lining silks, and necktie silks (known as broad silks), and manufacturers of and dealers in silk threads and yarns for sewing and embroidering
}. (known as sewing silks), and also manufacturers of and dealers in ribbons, thands, laces, yo, knit goods, etc. 5. That the word “silk” has a technical, precise, and exact meaning and is only accurately and Fo used in identifying and describing materials derived from the cocoon of the silkworm, and that said materials are superior in strength, elasticity, and durability to, and more expensive than, any other fiber used in connection with the manufacture of textile merchandise. 6. That your petitioner and the members of your petitioner are each of them financially interested in maintaining the reputation of all kinds of silk textile goods for beauty, strength, and durability and in maintaining the identity of silk merchandise distinct from other textile merchandise and free from all confusion in the minds of purchasers and the general public, and said members are similarly and injuriously affected by the activities of any and all merchants and manufacturers who place upon any of the markets of this Nation or distribute through the channels of interstate trade and commerce any kind of textile goods which are not derived in any part or proportion from the silkworm, but which are so misbranded and misrepresented by false, misleading, confusing, or unfair trade-marks, trade names, stamps, advertisements, wrappers, or containers as to mislead or deceive purchasers into the belief that said inferior merchandise contains some proportion of true silk; and any act on the part of merchants and manufacturers to so deceive or mislead purchasers and the general public, by improper use of the word “silk” or any combination of letters suggesting the word “silk,” into believing that merchandise of a particular manufacture not contain* any silk of the silkworm, is genuine silk is an unfair method of competition and a direct injury to the members of your petitioner by thus unfairly subjecting them to competition with i. of an inferior and cheaper character which are improperly, unfairly, and fraudulently sold and palmed off as silk merchandise, and such unfair methods of competition further destroy the reputation of genuine silk merchandise for strength, durability, and high quality by association of the word “silk” in the mind of the purchaser and consumer wit i. of a cheaper and inferior character, thereby injuring the reputation of genuine silk goods o and sold by the members of your petitioner, and such improper practices tend further to defeat the objects for which your petitioner was organized “of promoting and advancing the prosperity of the silk interest.” 7. That it is to the interest of the public and for the public good that purchasers and consumers should not be confused as to the character of the products they are purchasing, and that the identity of products derived from the silk worm should be clearly and distinctly maintained in all trading and commercial transactions for the benefit of all purchasers, whether ignorant or educated, by confining the use of the word silk or any combination of letters obviously designed to suggest the word silk to the original technical and accurate use of said word as descriptive of the products of the silk worm or goods containing some proportion thereof. 8. That there are various manufacturers and merchants throughout the United States, including the defendants above named, who are engaged in unfair methods of competition in interstate trade and commerce, to the injury of your petitioner and its members, by making interstate sales and intrastate sales, which come into competition with the interstate sales of the members of your petitioner, of merchandise .# no proportion of silk whatsoever, but branded, marked, stamped, or advertised with the word silk or some combination of letters suggesting the word silk, with the intent, purpose, and effect of palming off said goods on purchasers and the public generally as silk merchandise of the kind sold by the members of your petitioner in the course of interstate trade and commerce and that said merchandise so misrepresented and misbranded is sold, through the course of interstate trade and commerce in the same States and cities and, in many instances, to the same dealers and customers, as the interstate sales of genuine silk products by various members of your petitioner, and that your petitioner and the members thereof are being irreparably injured in their interstate trade and business in the manner hereinbefore set forth by said unfair methods of competition, through the loss of interstate sales, the impairment of the selling value of their silk merchandise, and the general injury to the reputation of their merchandise for high quality, . and durability because of its confusion in the public mind with inferior merchandise, on account of said unfair methods of competition; that among the instances where merchants and manufacturers have so engaged in the aforesaid unfair methods of competition to the injury of the public interests, your petitioners and the members thereof, in the manner aforesaid, are those hereinafter set forth. 9. That A. Theo Abbott & Co. is a corporation having its principal place of business at Berkley Street, east of Wayne Avenue, in the city of Philadelphia, and is there engaged in the manufacture of textile goods primarily for tapestries and interior
decorations, which do not contain any proportion of silk, and that said A. Theo Abbott
& Co. sells and distributes said products throughout the channels of interstate trade and commerce to customers in the cities of New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and elsewhere as "Kapock silk”; that the samples of said products bear the stamp “Kapock silk” and the words “Silk Venetian," and that the trade-mark of said company is generally advertised and reproduced in many magazines which are in general circulation throughout different States of the United States and is stamped upon the letterheads of said company, and that said trade-mark so generally advertised contains the name and description by which said goods are sold to the general public and upon which the public relies in purchasing said goods, and a photographic reproduction of said trade-mark is as follows:
That recently and after being accused of fraudulent practices as aforesaid by your petitioner said company has added to its trade-mark in minute and inconspicuous letters the words “is not a worm silk'' in such a manner as to still deceive purchasers and its goods are still sold as genuine silk. That a photographic reproduction of said altered trade mark is as follows:
That said altered trade-mark is printed on tickets attached to the merchandise and there is printed matter on the back of said ticket of which a photographic reproduction is as follows:
THE WHITE BASTING THREAD
10. That the goods so manufactured by said A. Theo Abbott & Co. and so misbranded, are distributed and sold to retailers in New York City and in many other leading cities in different States of the United States in the course of interstate trade, and are there sold at retail in said respective cities and said goods so sold come into direct competition with goods manufactured by various members of your petitioner for interstate sale and shipment and the interstate sale of said goods 80 misbranded has resulted in the loss of interstate trade to said members on account of such unfair methods of competition, because customers of said members who otherwise would have made interstate purchases of products of one or more of the members of your petitioner have purchased and retailed said misbranded products of A. Theo Abbott & Co. and would not have so purchased and retailed said products if they had not been improperly marked and misbranded “silk.”
11. That Charles Maxwell (Inc.), a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, is engaged in business at 1170-1172 Broadway, in the city and State of New York, and has from time to time sold, and is still selling and disposing of, rain coats to customers outside of the State of New York, and soliciting orders for said rain coats through the mails from customers outside of the State of New York, and in connection with said sales and solicitation of orders, is using the trade name “Maxwell Silk Poplin Rubberized Rain Coats.".
12. That said raincoats so sold and for which orders are so solicited do not contain any proportion of silk fiber, and the trade-mark or name containing the word “silk” and the word “poplin" is so used and attached for the purpose of deceiving and misleading the public into the belief that said merchandise is silk, and purchasers are so deceived; that said raincoats so misbranded are sold by said company in New York City and in the course of interstate trade and commerce to customers outside of the State of New York, and both said interstate sales and intrastate sales come into direct competition with interstate sales of genuine silk raincoats manufactured by members of your petitioner for sale and consumption in New York City and other cities in other States than the State of New York, and the said members of your petitioner are being thereby subjected to such unfair methods of competition, to their great and continuing injury.
13. That Goldin Bros., a copartnership, composed of Abraham, Tobias, and Samuel Goldin, and engaged in business as wholesalers of textile goods at No. 175 Grand Street, near Center Street, in the city of New York, have, from time to time, sold and still are selling and disposing of large quantities of mercerized cotton thread inclosed in a
wrapper with a trade name and printed matter affixed thereto of which a photographic reproduction is as follows:
14. That said merchandise so marked does not contain any proportion of silk fiber, and the trade-mark containing the word “silk” is so attached for the purpose of deceiving and misleading the public into the belief that said material is silk and the purchasing public are so deceived: that said goods so misbranded are sold by said copartnership of Goldin Bros., in New York City, and in the course of interstate trade and commerce to customers outside of the State of New York and come into direct competition with interstate sales of genuine silk thread manufactured by members of your petitioner for sale and consumption in New York City and other cites in other States than the State of New York, and the said members of your petitioner are being thereby injured by being subjected to such unfair methods of competition.
15. That Kaplan & Goldblatt is a partnership composed of Samuel Kaplan and George Goldblatt, and is engaged in the business of selling textile merchandise as wholesale merchants at 44 West Twenty-sixth Street, in the city of New York, and that said concern is selling and disposing of large quantities of cotton thread on spools which at each end contains a different trade name or stamp, of which a photographic reproduction is as follows:
16. That said thread so stamped contains no proportion of silk and is solely cotton thread, but is advertised in the press and sold as spool silk, and that by misbranding and so misrepresenting said thread as silk the said concern intends to and does deceive the purchasing public into the belief that said merchandise is silk; that said goods so misbranded are sold by said Kaplan & Goldblatt to customers in New York City and in the course of interstate trade and commerce to customers outside of the State of New York, and all said sales come into direct competition with interstate sales of genuine silk thread made by members of your petitioner to customers in New York City, in the State of New York, and to customers in other States, and the said members of your petitioner are thereby injured by being subjected to such unfair methods of competition.