To restrict its application solely to the product described in the advertisements placed in evidence could defeat the statutory purpose by enabling Respondents to continue the scheme by slightly modifying or redesignating its product. Danco, supra . In arguing that the Cease and Desist Order is impermissibly broad and ambiguous Respondents again contend that Fulfillment Center, Inc. and Francis Margulies should be excluded from coverage. Their argument is rejected for the reasons previously discussed. Respondents also allege the specific provisions of the Order are not clear and precise and deprive Respondent, National Gold Mint, the use of its trade name.
Respondents thus request guidance as to how to comply with the Order.
The contents of the Order have been carefully considered. That holding is affirmed. Its use is not specifically prohibited. What is prohibited is any representation by Respondents that they possess or control a place where coins, medals, or similar goods are made, if in fact they do not have such possession or control. Respondents' request for guidance on this matter is denied.