by subterfuge, misrepresenting the quality of the paper and binding, offering additional books or extension service "free," when in fact the price thereof was included in the price of the book bought, and making numerous false and misleading representations, all tending to deceive the purchasing public, the said practices injuring competitors who do not practice misrepresentation, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: At issue.

Complaint No. 1372.-In the matter of Synthetic Products Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondents, engaged in the manufacture and sale of a compound for use in softening rubber and rendering the same more resilient, labels and advertises its product as Liquid Rubber," when in fact the said product contains no rubber whatsoever, thereby tending to mislead and deceive the purchasing public, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting final argument. Complaint No. 1373.-In the matter of Public Service Cup Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent, engaged in the manufacture and sale of paper drinking cups, dishes, and like products. enforces a merchandising system adopted by it of establishing and maintaining certain specified uniform prices for the resale of its products, refusing to supply price cutters and employing cooperative means and methods for the en forcement of said system of resale prices, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commisison act. Status: In course of trial.

Complaint No. 1374.-In the matter of M. Samuels & Co. (Inc.). Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent, engaged in the manufacture and sale of shoes, brands and advertises the soles of certain of its shoes as "Tufhide," when in fact the said soles are made of a material and composition other than and containing no leather, thereby tending to mislead and deceive the purchasing public and to injure competitors who do not practice misrepresentation in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: At issue.

Complaint No. 1375.--In the matter of Union Woolen Mills Co., Racine, Wis.. Union Woolen Mills Co., Jackson, Mich., Max Cohen. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondents by the use and display of the names of the respondent companies, incorporated by respondent Cohen for the purpose of jointly conducting with him an interstate business in the manufacture and sale at retail of men's clothing, tend to mislead and deceive the purchasing public into the belief that the respondents manufacture the cloth used by them in the manufacture of their clothing and that persons buying from the respondents are buying directly from the manufacturers of both the cloth and clothing, thereby saving the profits of middlemen, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting answer. Complaint No. 1376.-In the matter of Great Lakes Rubber Products Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent, engaged in the manufacture and sale of a compound for use in softening rubber and rendering the same more resilient, labels and advertises its product as "Rubberite Compound," when in fact the said product contains no rubber whatsoever, thereby tending to mislead and deceive the purchasing public. in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting final argument.

Complaint No. 1377.-In the matter of H. Reisman & Co., a corporation, and Harry Reisman, individually and as president of respondent H. Reisman & Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondents, engaged in the sale of watches, jewelry, and other articles of merchandise by mail. make numerous false and misleading statements and representations concerning the character and quality of their merchandise and the value thereof, describing certain articles as composed in whole or in part of precious metals and ornamented with precious stones. when in fact said articles contain no precious metals and are not ornamented with precious stones, representing other articles as made, covered, or finished with leather, when in fact no leather is used, or made of ivory and French ivory, when in fact no ivory is used. and further in that the respondents make misleading statements and representations as to prices and values, thereby tending to deceive the purchasing public, and to injure competitors who do not practice misrepresentation, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting answer.

Complaint No. 1378.-In the matter of Ohio Leather Co. methods of competition are charged in that the respondent,

Charge: Unfair engaged in the

manufacture and sale of leather, advertises and labels one of its products as "Kaffor Kid,"thus indicating that it is manufactured from the skins of goats, when in fact the respondent's said product is manufactured from the hides of calves, thereby tending to mislead and deceive the trade and consuming public and to injure competitors who do not practice misrepresentation, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: At issue. Complaint No. 1379.-In the matter of Great Northern Fur Dyeing & Dressing Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent, engaged in the business of dressing and dyeing Australian and New Zealand rabbit skins, causes one of its trade-marks—“ Northern Seal" (black), "Northern Bevre (brown), "Northern Nutr.ette' (plum color)-to be stamped on the back of each skin prepared by it, and furnishes to manufacturers of garments made from such skins silk labels containing the words "Genuine Northern Seal," thus placing in the hands of dealers who sell to the public garments made from such skins the means whereby such dealers can commit a fraud on the publ e by displaying such labels and trade-marks to support their false representations that such garments are made from genuine seal fur or the fur of animals other than rabb.ts; the tendency being to deceive the purchasing public and to divert trade from competitors who properly label their rabbit skins, and from dealers in the skins of seals, beavers, muskrats, etc., all in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: At issue.

Complaint No. 1380.-In the matter of Feldbaum & Spiegel (Inc.). Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling to dealers garments made of dyed Australian and New Zealand rabbit skins, on the back of each of which skin is stamped the dyer's trade-mark "Northern Seal" and to wh.ch garments are attached silk labels bearing the words "Genuine Northern Seal," thus placing in the hands of dealers the means whereby a fraud on the public may be committed by displaying the labels and trade-marks to customers to support their false representations that the garments are made of genuine seal fur; the tendency being to deceive the purchasing public and to cause trade to be diverted from competitors who disclose that the garments made by them are made of rabbit fur, all in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: At issue.

Complaint No. 1381.-In the matter of Golden Fur Dyeing Co. (Inc.), and Samuel Jacobs and Isidor Sachs, partners, doing business under the trade name and style Jacobs & Sachs. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondents, engaged in the business of (1) dressing and dyeing Australian and New Zealand rabbit skins for the owners, and (2) manufacturing and selling garments made therefrom, cause the trade-mark containing the words "Golden Seal" to be stamped on the back of each skin prepared by the dyer respondent, many of which skins are owned by the manufacturing respondent and made up by it into garments for sale to the trade, thus placing in the hands of the dealers who sell the garments to the public the means whereby such dealers can commit a fraud on the public by displaying such trade-mark to support their false representations that such garments are made from genuine seal fur; the tendency being to deceive the purchasing public and to divert trade from competing manufacturers of properly marked garments made of rabbit skins, or from those who manufacture and sell garments made of genuine seal fur, all in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: At issue.

Complaint No. 1382.-In the matter of Cassileth, Schwartz & Cassileth (Inc.), Joseph Brickner and Julius Bernfeld, partners, trading as Brickner & Bernfeld, Samuel Oldman and Max Oldman, partners trading as Oldman Bros. Charges: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that respondents, engaged in the business of (1) dress ng and dyeing Australian and New Zealand rabbit skins for the owners thereof, (2) dealing in the skins so dressed and dyed, and (3) manufacturing and selling garments made from the skins so dressed and dyed and dealt in, cause the trade-mark" Iceland Seal" or "Iceland Beaver" to be stamped on the back of each skin prepared by the dyer respondent, many of which are so prepared on contract for the dealer respondent who sells some of the same to the manufacturing respondent, thus placing in the hands of dealers who sell the garments made from the "Iceland Seal" skins to the public the means whereby a fraud on the public can be committed by permitting them to display such trade-mark to support their false representations that such

garments are made from genuine seal fur; the tendency being to deceive the. purchasing public and to divert trade from competing manufacturers of properly marked garments made of rabbit skins, or from those who manufacture and sell garments made of genuine seal fur, all in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: At issue.

Complaint No. 1383.-In the matter of Adiel Vandeweghe and David Feshback. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that (1) the dyer respondent and (2) the manufacturing respondent (who purchases a substantial number of skins from the former) engaged in dressing and dyeing Australian and New Zealand rabbit skins and the manufacture and sale to the trade of garments made therefrom cause each of such skins to be marked on the back thereof the trade-mark “ "Superior Seal," thus placing in the hands of dealers who sell such garments to the public the means whereby such dealers can commit a fraud on the public by displaying such trade-mark to support their false representations that the garments are made from genuine seal fur; the tendency being to deceive the purchasing public and to divert trade from competing manufacturers of properly marked garments made of rabbit skins, or from those who manufacture and sell garments made of genuine seal fur, all in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting answer.

Complaint No. 1384.-In the matter of Philip A. Singer & Bro. (Inc.), and Herman Gelberg and Benjamin Schwartz, partners, doing business under the name and style Gelberg & Schwartz. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that (1) the dyer respondent and (2) the manufacturing respondent (for whom the former dresses and dyes many skins) engaged in the dressing and dyeing of rabbit skins and the manufacture and sale to the trade of garments made therefrom cause the trade-mark "Baltic Seal" or "Baltic Beaver" to be stamped on the back of each skin prepared by the dyer respondent, thus placing in the hands of dealers who sell the garments made from such skins the means whereby such dealers can commit a fraud on the public by displaying such trade-marks to support their false representations that the garments are made from genuine seal fur or from genuine beaver fur; the tendency being to deceive the purchasing public and to divert trade from competing manufacturers or properly marked garments made from rabbit skins, or from those who manufacture and sell garments made of genuine seal or beaver fur, all in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: At issue.

Complaint No. 1385.-In the matter of A. Hollander & Son (Inc.), A. Hollander & Son-Arnold Corporation, and Harry H. Hertz Co. Charge: Unfair competition is charged in that the respondents engaged in the business of (1) dressing and dyeing muskrat skins on contract for the owners, (2) dressing and dyeing Australian and New Zealand rabbits largely imported by itself, and (3) manufacturing and selling fur garments, cause each skin prepared by the dyer respondents to be stamped on the back thereof with the trade-marks "Hollander Seal" or "Bay Seal," and as many of such skins are sold to the manufacturing respondent there is placed in the hands of dealers the means of perpetrating a fraud on the purchasing public by displaying such trade-marks to support their false representations that the garments are made from genuine seal; the tendency being to deceive the public and to divert trade from competing manufacturers of properly marked garments made of muskrat or rabbit skins, or from those who manufacture and sell garments made of genuine seal fur, all in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: At issue.

Complaint No. 1386.-In the matter of C. A. Leitch Manufacturing Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent, engaged in the manufacture of roofing materials, sells its roofing paint, also called fluid cement, as and for a composition or mixture of Natural or Trinidad Lake Asphalt and Gilsonite with other substances, when in fact it contains neither Natural or Trinidad Asphalt nor Gilsonite, thereby tending to mislead and deceive the purchasing public and to injure competitors who do not practice misrepresentation, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting answer.

Complaint No. 1387.-In the matter of Reading Saddle & Manufacturing Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent, engaged in the manufacture of tools, advertises, labels, and sells certain of its products as "steel," "converted steel," or "solid steel," when in fact the said tools are not composed of steel and are composed of a metal other than steel.

thereby tending to mislead and deceive the purchasing public and to injure competitors who do not practice misrepresentation in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: At issue.

Complaint No. 1388.-In the matter of T. V. Aaron, trading under the name and style Home Art Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent engaged in the business of selling so-called pictures falsely states and represents in advertisements placed in magazines of wide circulation that for selling 24 pictures at 10 cents each there will be given as a premium a genuine American stem wind and set watch with a 10-year time guarantee, ring, and chain, and also that there was being given as a premium for selling his pictures A handsome white gold, 6-jewel, silver dial, Vanity movement, 25-year case, wrist watch," whereas the watch given contains no gold and is without a chain and ring and the wrist watch given contains no gold, has three jewels only, and neither its works nor its case is capable of service or use for a period of 25 years or any substantial portion thereof, the effect of which is to mislead the unwary and to injure competitors who do not misrepresent the premiums given by them all in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting answer. Complaint No. 1389.-Not released. Complaint No. 1390.-Not released. Complaint No. 1391.-Not released.

EXHIBIT 8

STIPULATIONS PUBLISHED AFTER DELETING NAME OF

RESPONDENTS

(The purpose of the following releases is to inform the public of those unfair methods and practices condemned by the commission and to establish precedents that will serve to eliminate unfair business methods of interest to the public and injury to competitors.)

STIPULATION OF THE FACTS AND AGREEMENTS TO CEASE AND DESIST

STIPULATION No. 1, APRIL 15, 1925

MAINTENANCE OF RESALE PRICES; SOFT DRINKS

Respondent, a copartnership, engaged in the manufacture of soft-drink beverages and in the sale of same in commerce between and among various States of the United States, and in competition with other individuals, firms, partnerships, and corporations also engaged in the sale of similar products, entered into the following stipulation of facts and agreement to cease and desist forever from the alleged unfair methods of competition used in the sale of said product.

Respondent represented that it was engaged in the manufacture of soft-drink beverages and in the sale of said product in commerce to bottlers located in various States of the United States. In a contract entered into between the respondent and the bottlers of said product it was understood and agreed that the bottlers would not sell to dealers at a price less than 70 cents per case of two dozen bottles each; that the purpose of the aforesaid clause is and was to require the maintenance of a resale selling price.

The respondent agreed to cease and desist forever from the use of the aforesaid contract, and further agreed to notify all parties bound by said contract that the clause maintaining resale prices was removed and no longer binding, and the respondent further agreed that if it should ever resume or indulge in any of the alleged unfair practices as above set forth, or any other method having for its purpose the maintenance of resale prices, or any other unlawful practices or methods of establishing a resale-price system, the foregoing statement of facts may be used in evidence against said respondent.

STIPULATION No. 2, MAY 13, 1925

FALSE AND MISLEADING BRANDS OR LABELS; BREAD

Respondent agreed to cease and desist forever from the use of labels on its said products containing the words "Packed by" or the use of any other word or words that import or imply that the product sold by it in interstate commerce is and was imported into the United States, and the use of any other word or words that may have the capacity and tendency to mislead and deceive the purchasing public into the erroneous belief that the product is baked or manufactured in a foreign country and imported to the United States and packed by the aforesaid respondent for distribution in interstate commerce; or until such time as the said respondent corporation does import or handle an imported product packed by it for sale and distribution in interstate commerce. It was further agreed that if the respondent should ever resume or indulge in any of the alleged unfair practices, as above set forth, the foregoing statement of facts may be used in evidence against it in a proceeding by the Federal Trade Commission.