Arrow Metal Products Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission

Third Circuit

Arrow Metal Products Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission

249 F.2d 83, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 5311, 1957 Trade Cas. (CCH) 68,847

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedNovember 7, 1957

DocketNo. 12224

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 249 F.2d 83 (Arrow Metal Products Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arrow Metal Products Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission, 249 F.2d 83, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 5311, 1957 Trade Cas. (CCH) 68,847 (3d Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petitioners seek reversal of a cease and desist order issued against them by the Federal Trade Commission. The petitioners use the term “porcenamel” to describe their awning products. It is charged that the use of this term carries a representation that the awning products are coated with porcelain enamel. They are not coated with porcelain enamel but with an organic plastic resin quite different from porcelain enamel. It was found by the hearing examiner that the use of the term “porcenamel” had a tendency to deceive a substantial portion of the purchasing public. The examiner made a cease and desist order which was affirmed on appeal by the Commission following an opinion fully discussing the questions involved. Arrow Metal Products Corp., CCH Trade Reg. Rep. (10th ed.) ¶ 26368 (FTC 1957).

The findings of the Commission are adequately supported. There was no error in receiving a report of a survey made to find out whether the use of petitioners’ term was capable of and did deceive members of the public. See United States v. 88 Cases, More or Less, etc., 3 Cir., 187 F.2d 967, 974, certiorari [85]*85denied 1951, 342 U.S. 861, 72 S.Ct. 88, 96 L.Ed. 648; Household Finance Corp. v. Federal Finance Corp., D.C.D.Ariz.1952, 105 F.Supp. 164, 166.

The petitioners complain that the cease and desist order is too drastic and that some other manner of preventing deception, if any, should be adopted. But the matter of shaping a remedy is for the Commission. Our function is simply, in the words of the Supreme Court, to find whether the Commission has made “an allowable judgment in its choice of the remedy.” Jacob Siegel Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 1946, 327 U.S. 608, 612, 66 S.Ct. 758, 760, 90 L.Ed. 888. The Commission did make an allowable judgment in this instance.

The order of the Commission will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The petitioners seek reversal of a cease and desist order issued against them by the Federal Trade Commission. The petitioners use the term “porcenamel” to describe their awning products. It is charged that the use of this term carries a representation that the awning products are coated with porcelain enamel. They are not coated with porcelain enamel but with an organic plastic resin quite different from porcelain enamel. It was found by the hearing examiner that the use of the term “porcenamel” had a tendency to deceive a substantial portion of the purchasing public. The examiner made a cease and desist order which was affirmed on appeal by the Commission following an opinion fully discussing the questions involved. Arrow Metal Products Corp., CCH Trade Reg. Rep. (10th ed.) ¶ 26368 (FTC 1957).

The findings of the Commission are adequately supported. There was no error in receiving a report of a survey made to find out whether the use of petitioners’ term was capable of and did deceive members of the public. See United States v. 88 Cases, More or Less, etc., 3 Cir., 187 F.2d 967, 974, certiorari [85]*85denied 1951, 342 U.S. 861, 72 S.Ct. 88, 96 L.Ed. 648; Household Finance Corp. v. Federal Finance Corp., D.C.D.Ariz.1952, 105 F.Supp. 164, 166.

The petitioners complain that the cease and desist order is too drastic and that some other manner of preventing deception, if any, should be adopted. But the matter of shaping a remedy is for the Commission. Our function is simply, in the words of the Supreme Court, to find whether the Commission has made “an allowable judgment in its choice of the remedy.” Jacob Siegel Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 1946, 327 U.S. 608, 612, 66 S.Ct. 758, 760, 90 L.Ed. 888. The Commission did make an allowable judgment in this instance.

The order of the Commission will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 F.2d 83, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 5311, 1957 Trade Cas. (CCH) 68,847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arrow-metal-products-corp-v-federal-trade-commission-ca3-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack