such agreed statement of facts as evidence in this case and in lieu of testimony, and shall forthwith thereupon make its report stating its findings as to the facts, its conclusions, and its order disposing of this proceeding without the introduction of testimony or the presentation of argument; therefore the Federal Trade Commission now makes and enters this its report stating its findings as to the facts and its conclusion:

FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS.

PARAGRAPH 1. That the respondent, the American Hosiery Co., is a Connecticut corporation with its principal office and place of business located at the city of New Britain in said State, and has been for several years and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of underwear, shirts, and other wearing apparel through and among various States of the United States, and has conducted such business in competition with other persons, firms, and corporations similarly engaged.

PAR. 2. That the respondent, American Hosiery Co., in the conduct of its business as aforesaid, sells and distributes its product of underwear, shirts, etc., to purchasers thereof located in different States of the United States, and that there is and has been at all times herein mentioned a constant current of trade and commerce in said products between and among various States of the United States.

PAR. 3. That for more than a year last past the respondent, in the sale of its products in interstate commerce, as hereinbefore described, has labeled, advertised, and branded certain lines of underwear and shirts as "Merino," "Super-cashmere," "Extra super-merino," "Merino shirts."

PAR. 4. That the underwear and shirts referred to in paragraph 3 are not composed wholly of wool, part of the material in them being wool and part cotton, the proportion of wool varying from 20 to 80 per cent; that said brands and labels may indicate to the public that said underwear and shirts are composed wholly of wool and thereby the purchasing public may be led to believe that the said underwear and shirts so branded and labeled, as aforesaid, are composed wholly of wool.

PAR. 5. That there is no evidence that the respondent has acted with any malice or deliberate intent or purpose to mislead the public in using the brands and labels aforesaid.

PAR. 6. That the respondent, at different times covering a period of 16 years, and particularly in the years 1904, 1905, 1911, and 1912, has made known to the retail trade in underwear with whom it did. business, through its publications in the form of descriptive price

lists, that the articles put out by it for sale and labeled "Merino," "Super-cashmere," "Extra super-merino," and "Merino shirts" contained cotton as well as wool; and that in December, 1919, subsequent to the issuance of the complaint in this proceeding, respondent published the said facts as to the presence of cotton as well as wool in its products branded as aforesaid, through advertisements in the daily press in the cities of New York, Boston, Washington, Philadelphia, and Hartford, Conn.

PAR. 7. That the terms "Merino" and "Cashmere" as used and understood in the underwear trade have generally signified fabrics composed of a mixture of wool and cotton.

PAR. 8. That for the past 20 years it has been the general custom and practice among underwear manufacturers in the United States to label, brand, and advertise underwear of their manufacture as "Merino "" 66 and Cashmere" when in fact such underwear so described is not composed wholly of wool, but contains an admixture of cotton; that large quantities of underwear have been imported into the United States from foreign countries and come into direct competition with the underwear manufactured in the United States; that a part of the underwear so imported into the United States has been and is now labeled, branded, and advertised as "Merino" underwear in accordance with the general custom and practice in the underwear trade in the United States, although the said underwear is not composed wholly of wool, but, on the contrary, is composed of cotton and wool in varying percentages.

PAR. 9. That the tendency of said labels to mislead the public entails interference with fair competition.

CONCLUSION.

From the foregoing findings, the Commission concludes that the method of competition set forth is, under the circumstances set forth, in violation of the provisions of section 5 of an act of Congress approved September 26, 1914, entitled "An act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes."

ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST.

The Federal Trade Commission having issued and served its complaint herein, and the respondent, American Hosiery Co., having entered its appearance by Gross, Gross & Hyde, its attorneys, duly authorized and empowered to act in the premises, and having filed its answer, and thereafter having made, executed, and filed an agreed statement of facts in which it stipulated and agreed that the Federal Trade Commission should take such agreed statement of facts as the

evidence in this case and in lieu of testimony and proceed forthwith on the same, and to make and enter its report stating its findings as to the facts, its conclusions, and its order without the introduction of testimony, and waiving therein any and all right to require the introduction of testimony or the presentation of argument in support of the same, and the Federal Trade Commission having made and entered its report stating its findings as to the facts and its conclusion that the respondent has violated section 5 of an act of Congress approved September 26, 1914, entitled "An act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes," which said report is hereby referred to and made a part hereof: Now, therefore,

It is ordered, That the respondent, American Hosiery Co., its officers, agents, representatives, servants, and employees cease and desist from directly or indirectly employing or using the labels and brands "Merino," "Super-cashmere," "Extra super-merino," and "Merino shirts" or any compound thereof, or any similar descriptive brands or labels on underwear, socks, or other knit goods except either (1) when the knitted fabric is made entirely of wool yarns of a kind specified, or (2) when the term descriptive of the wool stock is joined with the name of other staple or staples contained in the knitted fabric, e. g., merino wool and cotton; supercashmere wool and cotton; extra supermerino wool and cotton; merino shirts, wool and cotton.

Respondent is further ordered to file a report in writing with the Commission, three months from notice hereof, stating in detail the manner in which this order has been complied with and conformed to.

Complaint.

3 F. T. C.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

v.

THE GREAT REPUBLIC TIRE & RUBBER MANUFACTURING CO.

COMPLAINT IN THE MATTER OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 5 OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 26, 1914.

SYLLABUS.

Docket 492.-August 10, 1920.

Where a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of automobile tires and inner tubes as the "Republic Rubber Company," sold and advertised the same under the brand name "Republic," so that they became widely and favorably known as such and it acquired a valuable good will in the tires and tubes and in the brand name; and thereafter a competitor (a) Adopted the name The Great Republic Tire and Rubber Manufacturing Company ";

(b) Used the same (1) in its stock subscription blanks, certificates, pamphlets, prospectuses, letters, etc., and (2) on its tires, inner tubes, and other products;

(c) Extensively so advertised the same; and

(d) Branded its tires, inner tubes, and other products as "Great Republic," using said brand name in addition to its corporate name, on all its products and in its business generally;

Thereby deceiving and misleading the purchasing public to a substantial extent and causing it embarrassment and confusion respecting the identity of the two concerns and of their respective products:

Held, That such simulation of name, under the circumstances set forth, constituted an unfair method of competition.

COMPLAINT.

The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe from a preliminary investigation made by it that The Great Republic Tire & Rubber Manufacturing Co., hereinafter referred to as respondent, is now and for more than a year last past has been using unfair methods of competition in interstate commerce in violation of the provisions of section 5 of an act of Congress approved September 26, 1914, entitled "An act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes," and it appearing that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be to the interest of the public, issues this complaint, stating its charges in that respect on information and belief as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. That the respondent, The Great Republic Tire & Rubber Manufacturing Co., is now and at all times hereinafter mentioned was a corporation organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal office and place of business in the city of Muskogee, State of Oklahoma, and is now and for more than two years last past has been engaged in the sale of automobile tires and inner tubes, and in the transportation of the same from their place of manufacture to purchasers thereof in other States of the United States, in competition with other individuals, copartnerships, and corporations similarly engaged.

PAR. 2. That the Republic Rubber Co. is now and ever since the year 1901 has been a corporation organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Ohio, and for more than 10 years last past has been engaged in the manufacture and sale of automobile tires and inner tubes which are manufactured by it in the city of Youngstown, Ohio, and are sold through dealers, distributors, and agents extensively throughout the United States under the brand name "Republic"; that the said the Republic Rubber Co. has at all said times extensively advertised its said automobile tires and inner tubes so that they have become widely and favorably known by the said brand name, and that a valuable good will has been created throughout the United States for the automobile tires and inner tubes of the Republic Rubber Co. and for the brand name "Republic" under which they are sold as aforesaid.

PAR. 3. That the respondent, well knowing that the automobile tires and inner tubes manufactured by the Republic Rubber Co. had been for years extensively advertised throughout the United States under the brand name "Republic," and well knowing that said brand name and the automobile tires and inner tubes to which it was applied had acquired a wide reputation for good quality throughout the United States, at the time of its incorporation in 1919 adopted, and ever since has continued to use, as its corporate title, "The Great Republic Tire & Rubber Manufacturing Company," and has adopted and used as a brand name on automobile tires and inner tubes sold by it the words "Great Republic," which corporate title and brand name so closely resemble and simulate the aforesaid corporate title and brand name of the Republic Rubber Co. as to deceive and mislead the purchasing public and cause them to believe that the respondent and the Republic Rubber Co. are one and the same, and that the automobile tires and inner tubes advertised for sale by the respondent under its aforesaid brand name were and are the products of the Republic Rubber Co., with the effect of securing for the respondent the benefits and advantages of the extensive adver