NAB reports (Jan-Dec 1939)

known trade name whose legal owners had not given the respond¬ ents permission to so use it. Trading as Premium Sales Service, Charles E. Herchenroeder, Chicago, in the sale of electric dry shavers, is alleged to have composed his advertising matter so that the word “General” was placed above the words “Electric Dry Shaver” in a manner mis¬ leading buyers into believing they were purchasing General Electric Company products. Herchenroeder was also charged with misleading buyers into believing they were purchasing a $1S Packard Lectro Shaver by use in his advertisements of a picture of an electric dry shaver and the word "Packard” in bold type. The complaint points out that the respondent’s shavers were of inferior quality and had only a fraction of the value of a genuine Packard Lectro Shaver. The complaint against Herchenroeder also alleges use of a lot¬ tery plan in selling novelty articles to ultimate consumers by use of a push card system under which a participator selecting a feminine name corresponding with a name concealed under a master seal received a premium wholly by chance. (3762-3763) Barrett Company — See Chilean Nitrate Sales Corporation. jM. E. Carter & Company — See Fruit & Produce E.xchange. Chilean Nitrate Sales Corporation and The Barrett Com¬ pany, both of New York, are charged with restraint of trade in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and price dis¬ crimination in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act in a complaint. These companies together are alleged to monopolize the supply and distribution of raw or basic nitrate of soda sold in the United States. Chilean Nitrate imports its product from Chile while The Barrett Company’s product is manufactured at Hopewell, Va., by a corporation of which it is a subsidiary or affiliate. They sell basic nitrate of soda in bags for distribution to farmers as a raw, unmixed soil fertilizer and in bulk to manufacturers as an ingredient for use in compounding mixed fertilizers. The complaint charges them with entering into agreements, the effect of which is to monopolize the sale and distribution of their products by establishing, fixing and maintaining the prices at and the conditions under which both bulk and bagged nitrate of soda shall be sold to distributors and fertilizer manufacturers and resold to dealers and consumers. Their practices are alleged to have the further effects of restrain¬ ing and suppressing competition and of depriving purchasers of advantages in price, service and other considerations which they would normall)' possess, (3764) Ever-Keen Dry Shaver Company — Use of lottery schemes and misrepresentation in advertising are charged in a complaint against J. H. Tigerman, trading as Ever-Keen Dry Shaver Company and as Royce Dry Shaver Company. The respondent is engaged in the assembling, sale and distribution of electric razors, with his principal office and place of business at 43 East Ohio St., Chicago. The complaint alleges that salesmen and representatives are supplied with push cards and printed instructions. One of these reads, in part, “You distribute sales cards to friends, neighbors and others. They in turn present their cards to their friends who ‘take selections’ paying the small sums of 1!^ to ISt* for an oppor¬ tunity to own an Ever-Keen Dry Shaver. The person selecting the name corresponding with the one appearing under the seal on the card receives an Ever-Keen Dry Shaver. Each one of your solicitors collects a total of $10 from his sales card which he turns over to you. You give him 2 Ever-Keen Dry Shavers, 1 for himself and 1 for the person who selected the name corresponding with the one appearing under the seal. Two Ever-Keen Dr\' Shavers cost you as little as $5.50 — so you can make as much as $4.50 on every sales card.” The complaint also alleges that claims are made in advertising in magazines and periodicals by the respondent that his dry shavers are equal in value and performance to $15 dry shavers, whereas they are of inferior grade and workmanship. (3757) Ferguson Radio & Television Co. — See Automatic Radio Mfg. Co., Inc. Fruit and Produce Exchange — Illegal payment and acceptance of brokerage fees in violation of the brokerage section of the Robinson-Patman Act is alleged in a complaint issued against two Memphis, Tenn., dealers in foodstuffs and allied products and a group of companies selling their products to the two dealers. The Memphis dealers are Jake Felt, a jobber, trading as The Fruit and Produce Exchange, and M. E. Carter & Co., a whole¬ saler. Felt is alleged to own 84 per cent of the Carter Company’s outstanding stock and to manage its activities. The complaint describes the seller respondents as being typical of a large class of producers who sell to Felt and to competitors of Felt and M. E. Carter & Co. They are too numerous to be brought into the Commission’s proceeding without inconvenience and delay. In connection with their sales to Felt the respondent selling companies and other sellers are alleged to pay him so-called broker¬ age fees or commissions amounting to an agreed percentage of the quoted sales prices. The complaint further alleges that Jake Felt, trading as The Fruit and Produce Exchange, resells the com¬ modities so purchased to wholesale dealers and likewise resells through M. E. Carter & Co., to retail dealers. It is alleged that in connection with the purchases made by Jake Felt from the seller respondents no services are rendered to such sellers on such transactions. (3765) Galvin Manufacturing Co. — See Automatic Radio Mfg. Co., Inc. Nutrine Candy Company — A complaint has been issued charg¬ ing Nutrine Candy Company, 419 West Erie St., Chicago, with violation of the Robinson-Patman Act through granting illegal price discriminations and of the Federal Trade Commission Act through conducting a lottery in the sale of candy to ultimate consumers. It is alleged that the respondent company discriminated in prices charged its retail dealer customers purchasing similar units of candy of like grade and quality by allowing some of the dealers different prices than those granted others. The complaint contains a table of prices charged by the respond¬ ent over a given period showing discriminations on certain items in favor of chain store organizations as against small independent retail dealers, such discriminations ranging from 12)4 to 98 per cent above the minimum prices charged for these items, (3756) Premium Sales Service — See Automatic Radio Mfg. Co., Inc. Roye Dry Shaver Company — See Ever-Keen Dry Shaver Com¬ pany. Rulo Company — A complaint has been issued against Norman D. Loughlin, L. E. Rupe, Bernal H. Dyas, Ruth C. Hemstreet, Volney T. James and Page H. Lamoreaux, individually and trading as Rulo Company and Rulo Corporation, all of Los Angeles. The respondents are engaged in selling and distributing “Rulo Auto¬ matic Injector” and “Rulo Energy Fluid.” In truth and in fact, the complaint alleges, use of the device and fluid will not effect economies through lessening gasoline and oil consumption of the motor, and does not save any amount in the cost of gasoline and oil consumed by any car driven any dis¬ tance for any length of time. The fluid, the complaint alleges, is a lubricating oil to which a small quantity of collodial graphite is added, and this addition does not enhance the value of lubricating oil for use in automobile engines. (3761) VVoodley-Elliott & Company — Charging misrepresentation in the sale of men’s clothing a complaint has been issued against Woodley-Elliott & Co., a corporation, also trading as Associated Denver Tailors and as Associated Tailors, 1745 Champa St., Denver, Colo. In advertisements the respondent is alleged to have made repre¬ sentations to the effect that all or most of its stock of woolens or fabrics used in making its clothing was purchased as surplus stock of the manufacturers of “Hickey-Freeman,” “Society Brand” and “Fashion Park” clothes, and constituted practically all the surplus woolens or fabrics in the hands of these makers at the time of purchase. (3759) 3441 April 21, 1939