The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1922-04-29
COURT RULES
OUT DISHON-
EST LABELS
Decision is Said to Broaden
Jurisdiction of Federal
Trade Commission

Washington, April 24.-La5els
or brands under which articles are
sold, when open II construction in
the mind of the purchasing public
that they describe the component
ingredients or materials used in
the manufacture of the articles,
must clearly 6 nd definitely describe
them, the Supreme Court today
held in an opinion delivered by
Justice Brandeis in q case brought
by the Federal Trade Commission
against the Winsted Hosiery Com
pany. of Connecticut. Justice Nc
REYNOLDS dissenting.
The opinion Of the court, while
confined TO the particular issues
presented. will. it is stated, have
material effect in broadening the
jurisdiction of the Federal Trade
Commission in such trade practices.
Chairman Gaskill. of the commits
sion. described the decision as a
great victory.
Explaining that the Winsted
company for many years had man.
ufactured underwear for the retail
trade bearing the brand 'natu-
raj merino.'' gray wool" natural
wool" natural worsted." or Aus
tralian WOOL" Justic Brandeis de-
clared none Of this underwear is
all WOOL" but much OF il con-
tains only a small percentage Of
wool: some as little as 10 per cent" !"
Cannot Accept Contention.
IN this connection he said that
while the Winsted company labels,
particularly that bearing the word
.merino." have long been used in
the trade, "the court could not ac-
cept the contention thai they are
generally understood as indicating
goods partly Of cotton"
He declared it "unsound," assert
ing that the labels in question ARE
literally false" and except those
which bear the word .'nerino" are
:.palpably So All are calculated
TO deceive" Justice Brandeis
added, land do in fact deceive a
substantial portion OF the purchas-
ing public
Defining the words used upon
the laLelS of the company. JUS
tice Brandeis said "a substantial
part of the consuming public, and
also sorae buyers for retailers and
sales people. understand the words
as applied to underwear to
mean that the underwear is ali
wool" BY means of the labels and
brands part of the public is mis-
led into selling or into buying as
all wool, underwear which is IN
fact a large part cotton. he
added. declaring that the practice
tended Ito aid and encourage the
representation of unscrupulous re-
tailers and their salesnien, who
knowingly sell to their customers
as all wool. underwear which is
largely composed of cotton.
when misbranded goods attract
customers by means OF the fraud
which they perpetrate. trade is di-
verted from the producer OF truth
fully marked goods" the justice
stated. and the fact that "honest
might protect theil
trade by also resorting to decep-
tive labels" is no defense for such
practices.
Misrepresentation.
Misrepresentation and nlisde-
scription have become so common
in the knit underwear trade that
most dealers no longer accept Ia
bells at their face value" the JUS
tice continued. but that docs moi
prevent tf cir use being an unfail
method Of competition. A method
inherently unfair does not cease tt
be so because those competed
against have become aware Of tht
wrongful practice. Nor does Il
cease 10 be unfair because tbs
falSitv of the manufacturers rep
resentation has become SO vel
known to the trade that dealers
as distinguished from consumers
are no longer deceived. The hon
est manufacturers business may
suffer. not merely through a com
petitor'S deceivinS his direct Gus.
toner, ;he retailer. but aisi
through the competitors putting
into the hands of the retailer ar
unlawful instrument, which en-
abled the retailer u increase his
own sales Of the dishonest goods
thereby lessening the market fol
the honest product. That perscr
is wrong doer who so furnishes
another with the means OF con
sur.inating a fraud has long beer
a part of the law OF unfair com
petition.
The court pointed out that trade
marks which deceive the public
are denied protection. and found
that the commission was justified
in it's conclusion that the practice
constituted an unfair method Of
competition and that it was au-
thoriZed 10 order ;hat the practice
he discontinued.