Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1922-04-24
LABELS ON GOODS
MUST Be ACCURATE,
HIGH COURT RULES
Supreme Court Decision
Backs Federal Trade Board
in Hosiery Case.
OPINION CONSIDERED
IMPORTANT PRECEDENT
Purchasing Public Entitled to Com
plete Descriptions Of Prod
ucts Offered.

Trade names and labels used by
manufacturers must not convey to
the purchasing public an inaccurate
description of the materials or in
gradients Of the manufactured prod
ucts, the Supreme Court decided to-
day in q case brought by the Fed
eral Trade Commission against the
Winsted Hosiery Company.
Justice Brandeis, In delivering the
opinion of the court. upheld the. au-
thority of the Trade Commission to
issue an order to the company to
desist from certain practices. typical
of the trade, particularly its label
'Merino," as used In connection with
knit goods, on grounds that they con-
stituted unfair competition. justice
McReynolds dissented.
Definite Ruling Desired.
Manufacturers throughout the coun-
try have been awaiting with Keen
interest the decision Of the court In
this case, hoping. rule would De
laid down definitely defining the ex-
tent of the control the federal gov
ernment may exercise in designating
the labels and brands to be used on
products offered for sale in inter-
state commerce.
The government also considered the
question of "paramount mpor ,anoe =
asking a decision which could pc
made q precedent in disposing OF
large number of cases now before the
Federal Trade Commission involving
similar charges of misbranding.
The issue was precipitated when Tile
Federal Trade Commission sought 10
restrain, as unfair methods OF com
petition, labels and brands used py
many knit goods manufacturers when
the government insisted conveyed 10
the purchasing public the idea tnat
the underwear SO marked was conl-
posed wholly of wool. although tHe
evidence showed in most instances
that cotton was also an ins reute''''
Take. a. TYPICAL ExnnPle.
The United States circuit court OF
,sppAa1seson the sscend circuit decided.
However, against the contentious OF
the government, finding no fault with
the labels and brands used by the
Winsted Hosiery Company. which 1t
declared were well known to and ac-
curately understood by the trade.
From that decision the government
appealed to the Supreme Court. using
the winsted Hosiery Company. whose
methods the Federal Trade Commits
sion selected as typical OF the trade.
as test case.
The government hoped to obtain
from the Supreme Court a decision
which would be a sufficiently broad
construction of the Federal Trade
Commission act to estabhsh the com,
missions jurisdiction over~labels and
brands used by manufacturers in in
terstate commerce and enable the
commission to regulate such trade
practices whenever in its judgment
such practices might mislead the pur-
chasing public as to either the IN
gradients composing a manufactured
product or it's quality.
The government in arguing the
cases contended it was not sufficient
for manufacturers to use designations
in marking their goods which are
known to the trade. and insisted that
the Federal Trade Commission had
properly found that such. practices as
tho Sc followed in the knit. goods
trade to be unfair methods Of compe-
tition. The Winsted Hosiery Com
pany's labels of "merino," wool" and
wOfSteQ, uSeQ IN describing 0lHer-
ent grades Of underwear was mis-
leading, the government contended,
because the company added no words
to indicate to the public the percent
age Of cotton or other material not
wool which had been used in the
manufacture of the articles. Such
practices, 1t declared, was an impo-
sition upon the purchasing public.
The knit goods manufacturers, the
government stated. recognized the
soundness of its criticism and objec-
ton and recommended in resolutions
adopted at a meeting of their asso-
Citations that the practices complained
of be abandoned.
The Winsted Hosiery Company, a
member of the association, had itself
recognized the reasonableness of the
governments position. it was said,
and had agreed to discontinue the use
of ALI the labels and trade designations
which had been objected to BY the
Federal Trade Commission with the
single exception Of the word "meri-
no." The company insisted that the
government was in error in defining
that word to mean wool" and re-
ferred to numerous standard diction-
aries In support Of it's contention.