Case Name: DAMAR PRODUCTS, INC., a Corporation Also Doing Business as Mrs. Dorothy Damar, and David W. Margulies, Individually and as Officer of Said Corporation, Francis D. Margulies and Isaac G. Margulies, as Officers of Said Corporation, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES of America Before the Federal Trade Commission, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1962-10-29
Citations: 309 F.2d 323
Docket Number: No. 13929
Parties: DAMAR PRODUCTS, INC., a Corporation Also Doing Business as Mrs. Dorothy Damar, and David W. Margulies, Individually and as Officer of Said Corporation, Francis D. Margulies and Isaac G. Margulies, as Officers of Said Corporation, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES of America Before the Federal Trade Commission, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 309
Pages: 323–324

Head Matter:
DAMAR PRODUCTS, INC., a Corporation Also Doing Business as Mrs. Dorothy Damar, and David W. Margulies, Individually and as Officer of Said Corporation, Francis D. Margulies and Isaac G. Margulies, as Officers of Said Corporation, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES of America Before the Federal Trade Commission, Respondent.
No. 13929.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Oct. 19, 1962.
Decided Oct. 29, 1962.
Leonard M. Speier, New York City (Blum, Jolles, Haimoff, Szabad & Gersen, New York City. Daniel Gersen, New York City, of counsel, on the brief) for petitioners.
John Gordon Underwood, Washington, D. C. (James McI. Henderson, General Counsel, J. B. Truly, Assistant General Counsel, Miles J. Brown, Attys., on the brief), for the Federal Trade Commission.
Before McLAUGHLIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges, and DUMBAULD, District Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Respondent found that petitioners had falsely advertised their particular product involved and issued a cease and desist order against petitioners. The evidence in the matter clearly supports the finding of the Commission and its order. Though not abandoning their defense as to the merits, petitioners' major effort on this appeal has been to show that they have in good faith complied with the order and that they have offered complete assurance of their firm purpose of not violating the order. Therefore, urge the petitioners, the order should be vacated.
We must disagree. The record fully justifies the Commission's course of insisting that its order should remain in effect. Spencer Gifts, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 302 F.2d 267 (3 Cir. 1962); C. Howard Hunt Pen Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 197 F.2d 273 (3 Cir. 1952).
The order of the Commission will be affirmed and enforced.