NAB reports (Jan-Dec 1941)

rcy, an individual, Muncie, Ind., engaged in the sale and distribu¬ tion of a medicinal preparation designated "Gly-Cas,” are charged in a complaint with misrepresentation of their product. The complaint charges that in advertisements disseminated in commerce the respondents have represented that the preparation is a cure or remedy for constipation, indigestion, gas bloated and sour stomach, rheumatic, and neuritis pains, sore and aching muscles, headaches, and other ailments therein named; that the disorders and conditions mentioned are typical symptoms of con¬ stipation or faulty elimination; that the existence of one or more of such symptoms indicates that constipation is the basic cause of such disorders and conditions; that use of the preparation will com¬ pletely cleanse the system, remove toxic impurities and prevent in¬ vasion of intestional glands by bacteria, and that the product is a body conditioner and purifier which will restore one to normal health. The complaint alleges that the respondents’ preparation will not accomplish the results claimed; that the preparation has no thera¬ peutic value in the treatment of constipation in excess of tem¬ porary relief afforded by causing a partial evacuation of the intestinal tract; that the disorders and conditions mentioned in advertisements disseminated by the respondents as typical symp¬ toms of constipation or faulty elimination are not typical symptoms of constipation or faulty elimination, but are often caused by other systemic disorders, and when so caused the use of the respondents’ preparation will have no therapeutic effect. (4432) Gordon Foods, liir. — Alleging use of lottery methods in the sale of food products complaints have been issued against Gordon Foods, Inc., and H. W. Lay & Company, Inc., both of -Atlanta. The respondents, according to the complaint, sell to jobbers and retail dealers certain assortments of nuts so packed and assem¬ bled as to involve the use of games of chance, gift enterprises or lottery schemes, when sold to the consuming public. Charging that the respondents’ practices have been of a sort which are contrary to Federal Government public policy and in violation of the criminal laws and the Federal Trade Com¬ mission .^ct, the complaints grant the respondents 20 days for filing answer. (4438-4439) Haskelite Manufacturing Coritoration. 208 West Washington St., Chicago, which operates a factory in Grand Rapids, Mich., where it manufactures, among other products, wooden serving and lap trays, together with products designated as “Hasko De Luxe Buffet Trays” is charged in a complaint with misrepresenta¬ tion. The complaint charges that the respondent, in offering its trays for sale through advertisements in newspapers and other media, has represented, among other things, that the “Hasko De Luxe Buffet Trays” are “Hardwood with stimulated Walnut grained surface”, “Made of attractive simulated Walnut grained hard¬ wood”, and “Selected wood construction . , . available in Walnut or Mexican Copomo grains.” Through these representations, the complaint charges, the re¬ spondent has repre.sented that the trays are manufactured of hardwood, and are of selected wood construction, and that the surface of the trays is composed of hardwood material finished to simulate walnut or Mexican copomo grains. These representa¬ tions, the complaint continues, are false and misleading, as the trays are composed of a core of poplar soft wood material cov¬ ered with a surface of paper which has been processed and printed to resemble walnut or Mexican copomo wood grains in appearance. (4442) IJastiiig.s Maiiufactiiriiig ('onipany — A complaint has been issued charging the Hastings Manufacturing Company, Hastings, Mich., with violation of the F'ccleral Trade Commission and Robinson-Patman Acts in the sale of piston rings and other replace¬ ment parts for use in motor vehicles. The Commission at the same time dismissed without prejudice a proceeding resulting from a complaint issued in F'ebruary, 1940, alleging violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. (4030) The new complaint also charges the respondent with violation of the F'ederal Trade Commission .'Vet through practices having a tendency to create monopoly and unreasonabh' restrain manu¬ facturers of competitive products in disposing of their merchandise 40 — January 10, 1941 to jobbers and wholesale distributors of automotive parts and equipment. It is alleged that the respondent company, in attempting to sell its products, either directly or on consignment, to jobber cus¬ tomers, as an inducement to prospective jobber customers to dis¬ continue handling and stocking products of the respondent’s competitors and to sell the respondent’s products instead, engaged in various methods and practices including arran.gements for taking over and buying up the stocks of competitive products in the hands of jobbers, making loans to jobber customers upon their terminating business relations with competitive manufacturers and taking over the respondent’s line of products, and making mis¬ leading representations concerning the efficacy of its “Steel Vent” piston rings as compared with competitive products. The new complaint alleges that in violation of the RobinsonPatman Act the respondent discriminates in price between pur¬ chasers buying its commodities of like grade and quality in interstate commerce, through granting to some of them conces¬ sions and monetary considerations which are not granted to other of its purchasers. The complaint alleges that in consideration of their taking on the respondent’s line, some of the respondent’s customers, who have not previously purchased its products, are given cash gifts often ranging above $1,000, such donations not being granted to other of the respondent’s customers. In consideration of some customers taking on the respondent’s line for the first time, the complaint continues, the respondent pays them for the products of the respondent’s competitors then owned by such customers, the payments being substantially in excess of the value of the products. Other customers do not receive such payments, according to the complaint. (4437) G. Krueger Brewing Coniptniy, Newark, N. J., engaged in brewing and distributing beer under the brand name “Ambassador Beer”, is charged, in a complaint, with misrepresentation. In advertisements disseminated in commerce, the complaint charges, the respondent has represented: custom brewed beer for cultured taste, -Ambassador is designed to meet the present day demand for a lighter, milder, more delicately flavored beer. Only the choicest barley malt and hops are used in brewing this dis¬ tinctly different product.” Through use of these representations, the complaint continues, the respondent has represented that its product is composed wholly of barley malt and hops. In fact, the complaint continues, -Am¬ bassador Beer is not wholly composed of barley malt and hops, but includes corn and other grains or cereals. (4434) Mire Kope & Strand Manufaeturers Assoeiatioii, Inc., Washington. D. C., three of its officers, and 16 member companies manufacturing about 95 per cent of the country's production of wire rope, have been charged with unlawful agreement, combina¬ tion and conspiracy to eliminate competition, in a complaint. Wire rope varies in size from airplane control wires to suspension bridge cables. It is used in the operation of elevators, power shovels and other heavy pulling and lifting equipment. Respondent officers of the association are: Harry J. Leschen, St. Louis, president; George S. Whyte, Kenosha, Wis., chairman of the board; and George P. Lamb, Washington, executive secretary. Respondent manufacturer members of the association are: -American Chain and Cable Company, Inc., New York; The Amer¬ ican Steel and Wire Company, Cleveland; The Bethlehem Steel Company, Bethlehem, Pa.; Broderick & Bascom Rope Co., St. Louis; (folumbia Steel Company, San Francisco; E. H. Edwards Company, San Francisco; -A. Leschen & Sons Rope Company, St. Louis; MaeWhyte Company, Kenosha, Wis.; Pacific Wire Rope Co.. Los Angeles; Rochester Ropes, Inc.. Jamaica, Long Island, N. AC; John -A. Roebling’s Sons Co., Trenton, N. J.; Union Wire Rope Corp., Kansas City, Mo.; Upson-Walton Companv, Cleve¬ land; Wickwire Spencer Steel Company, New York; Wire Rope Corporation of -America, Inc., New Haven, Conn, ; and Wire Rope Manufacturing & Ivquipmcnt Company, Seattle. Organized to meet the requirements of the National Industrial Recovery .Act. the respondent association, according to the com¬ plaint. continued to function after that act was declared uncon¬ stitutional and is still in operation, the resirondents Leschen, Whvte and Lamb controlling and directing its policies and activities. The comirlaint alleges that to the extent that the respondent associa¬ tion members act coliusively and collectively in the pricing and