The New York herald., 1922-04-25
TRICK TRADE LABEL.
OUYLAWEr BY COURT.
I. $. Supreme Bench Rules
Brands Must Closely De-
scribe Articles for Sale.
EFFECT is FAR REACHING
Decision Against Winsted
Hosiery Co. Broadens Powers
of Federal Commission.

WASHINGTON. April 24.--Labels or
brands under which articles are sold,
when open to construction in the mind
OF the purchasing public that they de-
| scribe the component ingredients or ma
terials used in the manufacture of the
articles, must clearly and definitely de-
scribe them, the Supreme Court to-day
held in an opinion delivered by Justice
Brandeis in a case brought by the Fed
eral Trade Commission against the Win
sted Hosiery Company of Connecticut.
Justice McReynolds dissented.
The opinion, while confined to the par
ticular issdes presented, will have mate
rial effect in broadening the Jurisdiction
of the Federal Trade Commission in
such trade practices. Chairman Gaskill
of the commission described the decision
as a great victory.
Explaining that the Wnsted company
for many years had manufactured un-
dorwear for the retail trade bearing the
brands natural merino,' gray wool"
| natural WOOL" natural worsted" or
Australian WOOL" Justice Brandeis de-
clared none OF this underwear Is all
WOOL" but much of 1t contains only a
small percentage OF wool, some as little
as 10 per cent"
In this connection he said that while
the Winsted Company labels, particular
ly that bearing the word 'merino," have
long been used in the trade, the court
could not accept the contention that they
are generally understood as indicating
goods partly of cotton. VII
He declared it "unsound." asserting
that the labels in question are literally
false" and except those which bear the
word "merino," are "palpably so.'' All
tod IN iNypv Tue
Brandeis added, "and do in fact deceive
a substantial portion Of the purchasing
public"
Defining the words used upon the
labels of the company, Justice Brandeis
said "A substantial part Of the con-
suming public and also some buyers for
retailers and sales people understand
the words X X X as applied to under
wear to mean that the underwear is
all wool" BY means OF the labels and
brands part of the public is misled
into selling or into buying as all wool
underwear which in fact is In large
part cotton" the practice tending to
aid unscrupulous retailers and their
statesmen.
Misrepresentation and misdescrip-
tion have become so common In the knit
underwear trade that most dealers no
longer accept labels at their face value"
the Justice continued. but that does not
prevent their use being an unfair
method Of competition. The honest
manufacturer business may suffer, not
merely through a competitors deceiving
his direct customer. the retailer, but also
through the competitors putting into the
hands of the retailer an unlawful in
strument which enables the retailer to
increase his own sales OF dishonest
goods. thereby lessening the market for
the honest product"
The court pointed out that trade
marks which deceive the public are de-
MED protection. and found that the COM
mission was justified in its conclusion
that the practice constituted an unfair
method of competition. and that 1t was
authorized to order that the practice
be discontinued