I. DRESS OF GOODS. 1. Packing old rope as new. So simulating, on the part of a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of rope made from old, used, and restranded yarns, certain methods used in packing and distributing new rope, so as to give its product the appearance of new and unused rope, held, under the circumstances set forth, to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Federal Rope Co. (Inc.), 2 F. T. C. 327.) 2. Copying the general make-up of an established periodical.—An individual engaged in the printing and sale of a publication, never offered to the public generally nor sent through the mails, but purporting to be a regular mercantile and financial periodical, with the purpose of misleading the public as to the true character of such publication, closely simulated the appearance of a regular mercantile and financial publication by the inclusion of a large number of free advertisements of reputable financial concerns, inserted without their knowledge, held that such false and misleading conduct constituted an unfair method of competition. (W. F. Hanson, doing business under the name and style of The Mercantile & Financial Times Publishing Co., 2 F. T. C. 381.) II. FIRM OR CORPORATE NAME. 3. Confusing and misleading public by similar firm name.-Knowingly adopting and using, on the part of a firm dealing in automobile supplies, etc., a firm name so similar to one already in use by a competitor, with the result of confusing customers and the public as to the identity of the respective firms, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Auto Surplus Stock Co., 1 F. T. C. 424.) 4. Same. After acquiring a substantial number of motion pictures of a well-known actor, William S. Hart, a concern engaged in the production, leasing, sale, and exhibition of motion pictures, with a tendency and capacity to mislead the motion-picture theater going public, adopted, a trade name of "W. H. Productions Company," without the knowledge or consent of said William S. Hart, or of the "William S. Hart Productions (Inc.)," through which latter company said Hart marketed his motion pictures exclusively; held that such simulation and deception constituted an unfair method of competition. (Joseph Simmonds, doing business under the trade name and style of W. H. Productions Co., 2 F. T. C. 11.) 5. Same. Where a concern engaged in business as "The Sweater Store" and displayed such name on its signs and fixtures, and advertised in newspapers and other mediums under such name, thereby misleading and deceiving the public into believing that its business was one and the same as an older corporation which had built up a good will and business in similar goods under the name "The Sweater Shop (Inc.)," held that such simulation, under the circumstances set forth, constituted an unfair method of competition. (Emil West, doing business under the name and style of "The Sweater Store," 2 F. T. C. 67.) 6. Same. A corporation engaged for years in the sale of storage batteries for automobile ignition as "Universal Storage Battery Co.," and afterwards "The Universal Battery Co.," acquired an extensive good will in the use of the word "universal" as applied to such storage batteries; thereafter two competitors, chiefly representing the same interests, adopted the names, respectively, of "Universal Battery Service Co." and "Universal Battery Service Co. (Inc.)," with the result that the public was misled into believing that their batteries were those of the older corporation, held that such simulation of names constituted an unfair method of competition. (James S. Schafer, trading under the name and style of "The Universal Battery Service Co." and "Universal Battery Service Co. (Inc.)," 2 F. T. C. 95.) 7. Same.-Adoption by a partnership engaged in the business of dealing in secondhand tires of the name "Good Wear Tire & Tube Co.," with the full knowledge of the fact that the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. was then and had for a number of years engaged in the tire business, with the result of causing confusion on the part of the purchasing public, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Sophie Cohn et al., under the firm name of "Good Wear Tire & Tube Co.," 2 F. T. C. 216.) 8. Same. A corporation engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of knitted fabrics under the name of the Franklin Knitting Mills, of New York, and as such acquired a reputation for its product, and thereafter a competitor adopted the name "Franklin Knitting Mills," with the tendency and effect of misleading and deceiving the purchasing public, held that such simulation constituted an unfair method of competition. (Adolph Braude et al., doing business as "Franklin Knitting Mills," 3 F. T. C. 144.) 9. Same. Where a firm dealing in coffee, with a tendency to mislead and deceive the public, adopted and used a firm and trade name similar to one already in use by a competitor, which name of said competitor through years of selling and advertising had acquired a well-defined meaning and reputation with the purchasing public, held that such simulation of name, under the circumstances set forth, constituted an unfair method of competition. (J. Frank Bates, doing business under trade name and style of "Malzo Coffee Co.," 2 F. T. C. 58.) espective products, held that such simulation, ces set forth, constituted an unfair method of Great Republic Tire & Rubber Manufacturing ITATING COMPETITOR'S GOODS. ne of genuine article for imitation goods.—Appliturer of a floss or thread containing no genuine k" to the same and use thereof in labeling, adit, with the result that purchasers were misled ch goods were composed entirely of silk, and comine silk goods were injured, although no intenrer to cause deception was shown, held under the th to constitute an unfair method of competi. (Clarence N. Yagle et al.), 1 F. T. C. 13.) genuine article on simulation goods.—A corporaanufacture and sale of a floor covering composed impregnated with asphaltum, painted on both surface with decorative designs, included in its word "linoleum," called its product "linoleum," sed the same as linoleum, and sold the same in uine linoleum, such simulation of business and oleum" being intended to mislead and deceive such simulation under the circumstances connethod of competition. (Ringwalt Linoleum C. 436.) IV. TRADE NAME OR MARK. or's simulated trade name on similar goods.-A years made and sold a salve under the trade um," which trade name had acquired a well defined meaning and reputation with the purchasing public, and put such preparation up in paper cartons with said trade name prominently displayed thereon. Subsequently, a competing manufacturer with knowledge of these facts began to make and sell a similar preparation under the trade name of "Mentholanum" and displayed the same on such cartons and advertised such preparation for similar uses, which simulation was calculated to and did deceive and mislead the purchasing public and caused them to believe that the latter manufacturer's preparation was one and the same as the original, held that such simulation of trade name and dress of goods constituted an unfair method of competition. (Block & Co., 1 F. T. C. 154.) 14. Same. A corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of underwear, shirts, and other wearing apparel, in competition with manufacturers of underwear composed wholly of wool and by them branded and labeled as such, applied the label and brand "Men's Fine Jaeger Drawers" to certain of its underwear and so advertised and sold the same to the purchasing public, notwithstanding the fact that "Dr. Jaeger's Health Underwear" was then a well-known brand of underwear already identified in the public mind with a particular manufacturer, thereby misleading the purchasing public into believing that the product was the genuine "Dr. Jaeger's Health Underwear," held that such branding, labeling, and simulation constituted unfair methods of competition. (Himes Underwear Co., 2 F. T. C. 307.) 15. Same.-A corporation having offices in many of the more important cities had long engaged in the biennial publication of the wellknown reference book Who's Who (Who's Who in America), the general appearance of which was uniformly the same; thereafter a competitor, with the intent and effect of misleading the public into confusing it with said corporation and thereby securing desired data and subscriptions, adopted the same general appearance and price for its publications, Who's Who in the Northwest, Who's Who and Why (in preparation), Who's Who and Why in the United States, thereby deceiving many into purchasing its publications for those of aforesaid corporation, held that such simulation and practices, under the circumstances set forth, constituted an unfair method of competition. (Federal Press (Inc.), and C. W. Parker, 3 F. T. C. 345.) 16. Same. Confusing, misleading, and deceiving the purchasing public, by a corporation engaged in the sale and distribution of coffees, by selling a mixture of "Santos" and "Columbian" coffees under the name or brand of "M. and J." in competition with genuine Mocha and Java coffees without so qualifying such trade name or brand as to show that the coffee sold was not composed of Mocha and Java coffee, held, under the circumstances, to constitute an unfair method of competition. (E. E. Gray Co., 1 F. T. C. 221.) 17. Same. A firm styling itself "Mazo Bros." sold and distributed certain brands of coffee as "Mazo Coffee," which trade name through years of sale and advertising had acquired a well-defined meaning and reputation with the purchasing public and had become known as the product of said firm; thereafter a competitor adopted and used the name "Malzo Coffee Co." and displayed the word "Malzo" on wagons, packages, and advertising and printed matter, with a tendency thereby to mislead and deceive the public into believing that the coffee of the new company was one and the same as that of the older concern, held that such deceptive practice, under the circumstances set forth, constituted an unfair method of competition. (Malzo Coffee Co., 2 F. T. C. 58.) 18. Same. A corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of lightning rods, etc., under its patents, brands, trade-marks, and trade names of "Franklin," "Franklin Lightning Rods," etc., and on its stationery and advertising used therewith a picture of Benjamin Franklin; thereafter a competitor whose acknowledged products were made and sold under its well-known name, brand, and trademarks, secretly organized and operated two other companies with fictitious and nonexistent offices and manufacturing plants, and held these companies out as independent manufacturers and competitors, adopting for one of these companies the name of "Franklin Lightning Rod Co." used therewith and on its stationery and advertising a picture of Benjamin Franklin, selling under the name of "Franklin Lightning Rods" its products, similar to its competitors, thus passing off its goods for its competitor's, held that the deception and confusion of the public by such practices constituted an unfair method of competition. (St. Louis Lightning Rod Co., Monarch Lightning Rod Co., and Franklin Lightning Rod Co., 3 F. T. C. 327.) IMITATION OR SIMULATION OF DRESS OF COMPETITORS' GOODS. (a) Container or package. (a) Container or Package. Complainant manufactured a soap powder of a yellow color and devised a distinctive yellow package bearing the words "Gold Dust" and "Washing Powder," together with the maker's name and numerous indicia directions upon the various panels. Later defendant manufactured a yellow washing powder styled "Buffalo Powder," put up in same size packages as complainant's and using yellow wrapper, but making numerous changes in the markings. Held that there was a simulation of complainant's package which entitled complainant to an injunction restraining the sale of that particular form of package, "or any other form which should by reason of the collocation of size, shape, coloring, lettering, spacing, and ornamentation present a general appearance as closely resembling complainant's |