New Britain herald., 1922-04-24

Commission sought to restrain, as un- 1 fair methods of competition, labels l and brands used by many knit goods
 manufacturers which the government l insisted conveyed to the purchasing
 public the idea that the underwear so
 marked was composed wholly of wool although the evidence showed in most | instances that cotton was also an in 1 Sredient. The United States circuit | court of appeals for the second circuit decided, however, against the conten-
 tions of the government. finding no fault with the labels and brands used by the Winsted Hosiery company. which it decar were well known to
 and accurately understood by the
 t.adc. From that decision the gov
 ernment appealed to the supreme
 court. using the Winsted Hosiery i company, whose methods the federal trade commission selected as typical ! ot the trade, as a test case.
 The government hoped to obtain from the supreme court a decision which would be a sufficiently broad construction of the federal trade com mission act to establish the commits
 Sion's jurisdiction over labels and
 brands used by manufacturers in in
 terstate commerce and enable the commission to regulate such trade
 practices whenever, in it's judgment such practices might mislead the pur- chasing public as to either the n- gredents composing manufactured
 product or it's quality
 Government Argument.
 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 pro- perly found that such practices as those followed in the knit goods trade to be unfair methods of competition. The Wnsted Hosiery comrany's la hels of 'merino," "Wool' and "wor- sted," used in describing different grades of underwear was misleading, the government contended, because the company added no words to indi- cate to the public the percentage of cotton or other material not wool which had been used. in the manu- facture of the articles. Such prac- tices, it declared, was an imposition upon the purchasing public. The knit goods manufacturers the government stated, recognized the soundness of it's criticism and objection and recom mended in resolutions adopted at a meeting of their associations that the practices complained Of be ahan- doned The Winsted Hosiery com pany. member of the association, had itself recognized the reasonable ness of the governments position. it was said, and had agreed to discon- i tinue the use of all labels and trade designations which had been object ed to by the federal trade commission with the single exception of the word "merino." The company insisted that the government was in error in detin- | ing that word to mean 'Wool.' and referred to numerous standard dic- . tionarics in support of it's contention. 1
 The government set forth that all manufacturers of wool and cotton ! mixed underwear, with the exception of the Wnsted Hosiery company, have abandoned the use of the word "merino" in connection with such goods. Retailers in handling knit goods were either themselves deCeiv- cd by the labelling. the government added. or many of them Intentionally deceived their customers. and were aided in doing so by the branding used by the company
 Ninsted Co.'S Claim.
 Council for the Winsted company contended that manufacturers were not guilty of misbranding or unfair ! practices when designations used by | them in labelling or identifying their | gt ods were known to the trade, de- i cla-ing that for twenty years il had | been the general custom in the knit ! goods business to manufacture, label. | advertise and brand goods as the ! compa ny did, although such articles | were lot composed wholly Of wool. | The Wtpsted company did not orig | mate tn practice, counsel explained, | but had followed competition meth ods preva ing throughout the trade. | and which he insisted, were well known to distributors throughout the | TtN crl1pan, did ct sell