See Donaldson v. Furthermore, the representation is material in that it would tend to induce the recipient to remit the two dollar delivery fee. The format and content of CX-3 differs from the Postal Service forms and no evidence has been presented with respect to the forms of other common carriers. The ordinary recipient would not be likely to perceive CX-3 to be a delivery notice from the Postal Service, UPS or another common carrier. Complainant contends that the overall impression conveyed by CX-3 is that the product is a prize.
Complainant also relies on the format of the postcard as portraying a prize notification.
As Complainant points out, the determination of the existence of a representation should be based on the content and format of the individual solicitation and not simply on a comparison of the solicitations in evidence. Accordingly, Complainant's second exception is denied. Complainant contends that language in the revised postcard continues to convey the impression that the vouchers alone can be used to purchase merchandise. Respondents argue that the revised postcard clearly indicates that the vouchers are good toward the purchase of merchandise and that the postcard cannot be construed to mean that no additional payment is necessary. He identified several elements of CX-3 which he found to rebut the allegation.