NAB reports (Jan-Dec 1941)

The complaint charges that the respondent corporation, in let¬ ters and circulars transmitted by mail and otherwise through the various States of the United States (except into and in certain States where the respondent has been compelled by requirement of statutes relating to poultry feeds to modify its representations), has represented and implied that poultry rations generally are inade¬ quate and must be supplemented by the vitamins and nutritional factors represented and implied as being contained in sufficient quantities or percentages in its product. The complaint also alleges that the respondent also represents and implies that the addition of its product as a supplement to a diet or ration already containing the necessary food elements and vitamins results in substantially increased egg production, better health, hatchability of eggs, de¬ creased mortality and other advantages set forth in its representa¬ tions. The complaint alleges that these representations are unw'arranted, grossly exaggerated and misleading, and that the lespondent’s prod¬ uct is merely one of a class of dried grain after-distillation remnants ancl does not have the qualities and efficacy claimed for it. (442S). Poweriiie Company, Denver, Colo., engaged in the sale and distribution of petroleum products to retail dealers and jobbers, is charged, in a complaint with the use of lottery methods in the sale of its products, designated “Powerine” ancl ‘‘Powerlube”. The complaint charges that in connection with the sale of these products the respondent has distributed to dealers a so-called “Right in the Palm of Your Hand” device for use in the sale and distribution of the products to the consuming public in a manner involving the operation of a game of chance, gift enterprise or lottery scheme. The devise consists of a booklet, the complaint continues, together with a number of sales receipts or coupons. The petroleum products, services or cash awards to be awarded purchasers vary in value in accordance with each individual book¬ let. the complaint alleges, and are effectively concealed from pur¬ chasers until certain seals are broken and removed from the booklets, thus the prizes or awards are distributed to the purchasing public wholly by lot or chance. The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondent, the complaint alleges, constitute unfair methods of competition in commerce and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce wdthin the meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. (4423). Kosse Products Company — Edward C. Rose, trading under the firm name of Rosse Products Company, 2708 West Farwell Ave., Chicago, engaged in the advertising, sale and distribution of a medicinal preparation designated as “Rosse Rheuma Tabs”, is charged, in a complaint with misrepresentation. By the dissemination of advertisements concerning his prepara¬ tion circulated by United States mails and other means in commerce, the complaint charges, the respondent has represented that his product is a cure or remedy for rheumatism, rheumatic pains, and sensitive joints, and constitutes a competent and effective treatment therefor, and that it will relieve the pain attendant upon which such conditions for a longer period of time than any other prep¬ aration. The complaint charges that the product is nothing more than a laxative and diuretic having mild analgesic properties ; has no cura¬ tive action on the underlying factors that cause rheumatic pains ; and has no therapeutic value in the treatment of rheumatism, rheumatic pains or sensitive joints, in excess of furnishing tem¬ porary relief from the symptoms of pain. (4428). Ruth Gowns, Inc., 498 Seventh Ave., New York, engaged in manufacturing, selling and distributing various grades and types of dresses and other wearing apparel for women, is charged, in a complaint wdth falsely representing the constituent fiber or material of which its products are made. Such representations, according to the complaint, are made by means of tags, labels, price lists and invoices, as well as in various advertising material circulated in commerce, through statements made to purchasers, and by the respondent’s failure to disclose the rayon content of certain of its products. The complaint alleges that an example of the respondent’s rep¬ resentations is its placing on price lists and invoices and in various advertising circulars of the term “Tie Silk Taffeta Dress”, or other terms indicative of silk, thus representing that the fabrics so described are composed of silk, when in fact they consist in whole or in part of rayon. In a large portion of the respondent’s sales, the complaint alleges, no indication of the fabric content of its products is made by tag, label or invoice, in advertising, or by any other means, and a large portion of the respondent’s products which have the appearance and feel of silk but are composed entirely of rayon, are therefore sold through wholesalers, jobbers and retail dealers to the purchas¬ ing public wdthout any disclosure being made of their rayon content. (4426). Siegel & Alenikoff — Joseph Henschel, Jacob Siegel and Philip Alcnikoif, copartners trading as Siegel & Alenikoti, 520 Eightn Ave., New York; H. M. Thorman and Alfred Schuster, trading under the name H. M. Thorman, 2101 Superior Ave., Cleveland; Joseph Bloomfield, trading as Bloomfield Company, 75 Kneeland bt., Boston; Lou Littman, 153 East Grand River Ave., Detroit, and Sugar, Eeinberg & Erankel, 318 West Adams St., Chicago, are charged in a complaint with unfair and deceptive acts and prac¬ tices in commerce. Respondents Joseph Henschel, Jacob Siegel and Philip Alenikoff, trading as Siegel & Alenikoff, have been engaged in the manulacture and sale of women’s textile fabric coats and other garments, some made of fabrics composed of wool and cotton, and some of rayon, wool and cotton. The other respondents are engaged in selling and distributing women’s textile fabric coats and other garments manufactured tor and shipped to them by Henschel, Siegel and ■Ulenikoff. The complaint charges that the respondents, in connection with the offering for sale and sale of their textile fabric garments, refer to and designate such textile garments through use of the word “Persian” and by the trade names “Galykurl” and “B.4BELAMM,” and advertise the garments by means of trade journals, window display cards and other advertising matter which describe and refer to the garments as “Persian,” “Genuine BABELAMM,” and “Persian Fur F'abrics,” together with the word “Imported,” and other words of like import and meaning, accompanied by pictorial designs of sheep or lambs, and showing a woman wearing a coat having the appearance of fur. The respondents also, the complaint continues, attach to the textile fabric garments certain tags and labels, some of which bear upon their faces pictorial designs of sheep or lambs and the trade names “Galykurl” and “BABELAMM.” These garments, the complaint continues, are constructed so as to have the appearance of silky, tightly-curled and highly prized fur of the young of the Karakul breed of sheep, and convey the impression and induce the belief from their appearance that they are in fact made of the peltries of “Persian” lambs, the young of such Karakul sheep, or are made from silky hair or wool of peltries coming from such lambs. The respondents also, the complaint charges, by use of labels and tags and other advertising matter, have created the impression in the minds of purchasers and prospective purchasers that the garments are made in whole or in part from the peltries of the young of the Karakul breed of sheep or from the wool taken from such sheep, and that the materials of which they are made are imported from Persia. In truth, the complaint alleges, the garments are made in the United States of fabrics composed of wool and cotton, or of rayon, wool and cotton. The labels, tags and other advertising material employed by the respondents, the complaint continues, to describe, designate or refer to their products, do not disclose or indicate the presence of rayon or cotton in the garments, and the respondents, by furnishing such deceptive and misleading labels and tags and other advertising material to customers, and causing such labels and tags to be placed upon the garments for resale to the purchas¬ ing public, have placed in the hands of retail dealers a means and instrumentality whereby they might deceive or mislead members of the purchasing public. (4427). Sna|)-Oii-Tools Corporation, Kenosha, Wis., engaged in the manufacture and distribution of tools, is charged, in a complaint with the use of lottery methods in the sale and distribution of its products. In the conduct of its business, the complaint charges, the respondent has sold its merchandise to members of the public in accordance with a sales plan involving a game of chance, gift enterprise or lottery scheme, and has supplied the managers of its branch offices with sales posters and circular letters outlining the sales plans or methods by which its merchandise was to be and has been sold and distributed to the purchasing public. (4429). VVortliniore Sales Promotion Service, Inc., 221 East 20th St., Chicago, engaged in the manufacture and sale of a device January 3, 1941 — 21