48 BULLETIN 1106, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
ers, as the name implied. The order required the Farmers’ Coopera- 
tive Fertilizer Co. to show on its letterheads and on its places of 
business that it was a sudsidiary of Armour & Co. 
Attempts by an association of harness manufacturers and by a 
saddle-makers’ association to compel the separation of the wholesale 
and retail harness dealers by refusing to recognize those who engaged 
in both the wholesale and retail trade as authorized jobbers and to 
prevent the sale by manufacturers of accessories to such persons was 
held in a certain case to be unlawful and subject to action by the 
Federal Trade Commission. In this case, as indicated, the two asso- 
ciations attempted through the membership of each to prevent man- 
ufacturers, jobbers, and wholesalers from selling direct to con- 
sumers.** 
The Winsted Hosiery Co. has for many years manufactured un- 
derwear which it sells to retailers throughout the United States. It 
brands or labels the cartons in which the underwear is sold as “ Nat- 
ural Merino,” “Gray Wool,” “ Natural Wool,” “ Natural Worsted,” 
or “ Australian Wool.” The Federal Trade Commission *? instituted 
proceedings against this company, calling upon it to show cause why 
use of these brands and labels, alleged to be false and deceptive, 
should not be discontinued. After appropriate proceedings an order 
was issued which directed the company to— 
Cease and desist from employing or using as labels or brands on under- 
wear or other knit goods not composed wholly of wool, or on the wrappers, 
boxes, or other containers in which they are delivered to customers, the words 
“ Merino,’ ‘“ Wool,” or ‘‘ Worsted,” alone or in combination with any other 
word or words, unless accompanied by a word cr words designating the sub- 
stance, fiber, or material other than wool of which the garments are composed 
in part (e. g., “ Merino, Wool, and Cotton”; “ Wool and Cotton”; “ Worsted, 
Wool, and Cotton”; “ Wool, Cotton, and Silk’), or by a word or words other- 
wise clearly indicating that such underwear or other goods is not made wholly 
of wool (e. g., part wool). 
The Winsted Hosiery Co. petitioned the Circuit Court of Appeals 
for the Second Circuit to set aside the order of the commission, and 
this was done. The Federal Trade Commission then carried the 
case by certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. That 
court found that the order of the commission was a proper one, and 
in upholding the right of the commission to issue the order it said: 
The labels in question are literally false, and, except those which bear the 
word ‘“ Merino,” are palpably so. <All are, as the commission found, calcu- 
lated to deceive, and do in fact deceive, a substantial port'on of the purchasing 
public. * * * The facts show that it is to the interest of the public that a 
proceeding to stop the practice be brought. And they show also that the prac- 
tice constitutes an unfair method of competit’on as against manufacturers of 
41 Nat'l. Harness Mfg. Assoc. v. Fed. Trade Commission, 268 Fed. 705. 
#2 Federal Trade Commission v. Winsted Hosiery Co., 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 384. 
