§ 15.222 Disclosure of foreign origin of component part of ice cream spade assembled in this country.

(a) The Commission was requested to render an advisory opinion with respect to the necessity for disclosing the country of origin of the imported metal portion of an ice cream spade manufactured in this country.

(b) The opinion advised that in the Commission's view the country of origin of the imported metal portion of the ice cream spade should be disclosed wherever the name of the company appears and that is should be disclosed in a clear and conspicuous manner on the package or the ice cream spade itself.

[33 F.R. 5791, Apr. 16, 1968]

§ 15.223 Necessity for disclosing foreign country of origin of imported gloves.

(a) The Commission was requested to furnish an advisory opinion as to the necessity for disclosing the country of origin of imported gloves which will be packaged in this country.

(b) The opinion advised that in the Commission's view it will be necessary to disclose the country of origin of the gloves in a clear and conspicuous manner at the point of sale.

[33 F.R. 5791, Apr. 16, 1968]

§ 15.224 Domestic origin marking for product containing foreign made components.

(a) The Commission issued an advisory opinion dealing with the propriety of using the marking "Made in U.S.A." on a product, a significant component of which is in fact manufactured or produced in a foreign country.

(b) The Commission was of the opinion that the proposed marking would consitute an affirmative claim that the product was entirely of domestic origin and such claim would be manifestly incorrect and actionable.

(c) An article assembled or processed in the United States as described, however, might properly be marked "Made in U.S.A." if the marking is accompanied by appropriate qualifying words (e.g. "of 'X' country components" or "of 'X' country materials") provided this additional disclosure is made as conspicuously as the claim "Made in U.S.A." and in close proximity thereto.

[33 F.R. 5943, Apr. 18, 1968; 33 F.R. 8446, June 7, 1968]

§ 15.225 Labeling of material composed of leather fibres imported in their entirety.

(a) The Commission rendered an advisory opinion in regard to the legality of the following five terms to label material composed of pulverized leather: (1) Pulverized Leather.

(2) Reconstituted Leather.
(3) Imported Bonded Leather-Fibres.
(4) Bonded Leather-Fibres.
(5) 100 percent Leather-Fibres.

(b) Imported from Europe, the material will be sold to manufacturers of luggage, handbags and various other leather goods. The pulverized leather will be bonded with an adhesive and coated either with some type of lacquer or vinyl coating.

(c) In its opinion, the Commission ruled that it had no objection to labels which describe the material as "Pulverized Leather" or "Bonded LeatherFibres." It rejected, however, the term "Reconstituted Leather" since the word "Reconstituted" creates the impression that the material is leather which has been reprocessed in some manner, when in fact it is nothing more than pulverized leather held together by an adhesive.

(d) With respect to the third proposed label, the Commission expressed the opinion that it would be deceptive to use the word "imported" without disclosing the specific country of origin of the material. Even though the word "imported" is not used, the Commission said that it would still be necessary to disclose the origin of the material since it is entirely imported.

(e) According to its opinion, the Commission also ruled that it would be improper to represent that the material consists of "100 percent" leather fibres, since it contains a substantial amount of adhesive as well as being coated either with a lacquer or vinyl coating. The requesting party was further advised, however, that there would be no objection to using a percentage figure which factually portrays the amount of pulverized leather present in the material.

(f) With further reference to the fifth and final proposed label, the Commission stated that the words "Leather-Fibres" either standing alone, or when coupled with the leather appearance of the material, could create the impression that the material is wholly the hide of an animal or at least something more than pulverized leather. To dispel this erroneous impression, the Commission said

it would be necessary to use qualifying language, such as "Bonded LeatherFibres," "Leather fibres and an adhesive," etc., in connection with the words "Leather-Fibres."

(g) Finally, if the seller decided not to reveal the composition of the material, the Commission pointed out that it would be necessary to disclose that it is not leather by such language as "Not Leather," "Imitation Leather," or "Simulated Leather". The reason for this, the Commission said, is that the material has the appearance of leather, and in order to remove the potential deception inherent through its appearance it is necessary to disclose the fact that it is not leather.

[33 F.R. 5943, Apr. 18, 1968]

§ 15.226 Necessity for disclosing foreign country of origin of imported honing

stones.

(a) The Commission was requested to furnish an advisory opinion as to the necessity for disclosing the country of origin of imported honing stones which will be affixed to plastic handles in this country. The name of the applicant, an American company, would appear on the handle.

(b) The opinion advised that in the Commission's view the country origin of the honing stone must be disclosed in a clear and conspicuous manner on the product itself.

[33 F.R. 5944, Apr. 18, 1968]

§ 15.227 Necessity for disclosing foreign country of origin of repackaged imported nails.

(a) The Commission was requested to furnish an advisory opinion as to the necessity for disclosing the country of origin of imported nails, which will be imported in bulk and repackaged in this country.

(b) The opinion advised that in the Commission's view the country of origin of these nails must be disclosed in a clear and conspicuous manner on the package in which they are sold and that neither directly nor indirectly could the importer imply that the nails are made in the United States.

[33 F.R. 5944, Apr. 18, 1968]

§ 15.228 Country of origin labeling on bubble-packed imported switchplates.

(a) The Commission was requested to render an advisory opinion in regard to

the proper marking of the origin of imported switchplates, which are to be packaged in a plastic bubble sealed to a display card for resale to the general public.

(b) In the opinion the Commission advised the requesting party that it would be necessary to clearly and conspicuously disclose the foreign country of origin of the imported switchplates on the front of the display card. [33 F.R. 5944, Apr. 18, 1968]

§ 15.229

Country of origin disclosure of imported braids used in production of braided rugs.

(a) The Commission was requested to render an advisory opinion with respect to the necessity of disclosing the country of origin of imported braids which are stitched together in the United States to produce a braided rug.

(b) The opinion advised that in the Commission's view there should be a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the rugs were assembled and sewn in the United States of imported materials. [33 F.R. 5944, Apr. 18, 1968]

§ 15.230 Foreign country of origin disclosure on mounting cards displaying imported eyelashes.

(a) The Commission was requested to render and advisory opinion concerning the proper labeling as to the foreign country of origin of imported false eyelashes. All of the other components, such as the mounting card, directions for use, plastic box, adhesive, etc., will be made and printed in the United States.

(b) In its opinion the Commission concluded that it would be necessary to disclose the foreign country of origin of the imported eyelashes. The Commission also said that it would be acceptable for the disclosure to be made on the back of the mounting card, provided the disclosure is prominent and conspicuous. [33 F.R. 5944, Apr. 18, 1968]

§ 15.231 Foreign country of origin disclosure on containers of repackaged imported chemicals.

(a) An advisory opinion was rendered by the Federal Trade Commission in regard to the question of whether it is necessary to disclose the foreign country of origin on containers of imported chemicals which are repackaged in the United States.

(b) In the opinion, the Commission advised the requesting party that it

would be necessary to disclose the foreign country of origin of the imported chemicals on the repackaged containers in a clear and conspicuous manner. [33 F.R. 6157, Apr. 23, 1968]

§ 15.232 Foreign country of origin disclosure of imported knife blades.

(a) The Commission rendered an advisory opinion concerning the proper marking of the origin of knife blades imported from a foreign country. The imported blades will be assembled with handles of domestic origin.

(b) The Commission advised the party seeking the opinion that it would be necessary to make clear and conspicuous disclosure of the foreign country of origin of the imported blades. [33 F.R. 6157, Apr. 23, 1968]

§ 15.233

Foreign country of origin disclosure of imported radios at point of sale.

(a) The Commission rendered an advisory opinion in regard to the question of whether it is necessary to disclose the foreign country of origin on the container of an imported two-way radio. The equipment itself will be stamped or labeled to denote the foreign country of origin.

(b) Citing the general rule in matters of this nature, the Commission stated that a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the foreign origin of the product must be made at the point of sale. This means, the Commission added, that it may be necessary to make the disclosure on each individual container, if the prospective purchaser does not have the opportunity to inspect the merchandise prior to the purchase thereof in order to be apprised of its origin.

[33 F.R. 6157, Apr. 23, 1968]

§ 15.234

Labeling partially imported product as "Made in U.S.A.”

(a) The Commision rendered an advisory opinion in regard to the question of whether it would be permissible to label the container of a polishing cloth as "Made in U.S.A." if approximately 38 percent of the cost of the finished product is imported from a foreign country, the remainder being of domestic origin.

(b) The polishing cloth is composed of two separate cloths sewn together, one which is impregnated and is used for polishing and the other is untreated flannel which is used as a finishing-off cloth.

It is the impregnated cloth which will be imported, and the untreated flannel will be obtained from a domestic source. Because the greater portion of the cost of the finished product is of domestic origin, the requesting party seeking the opinion wanted to know whether it would be proper to label the container as "Made in U.S.A."

(c) In its advisory opinion, the Commission said: "*** the claim, 'Made in U.S.A.,' would constitute an affirmative representation that the entire polishing cloth was of domestic origin. Since a substantial portion of the finished product is of foreign manufacture, it would be improper to label the container as 'Made in U.S.A.' However, if you wish to do so, you may make the following claim: 'Made in U.S.A. of impregnated cloth imported from * * *'”

[33 F.R. 6157, Apr. 23, 1968]

§ 15.235 American manufacturer may not place labels "Made in U.S.A." on garments manufactured in this country from imported cloth.

(a) The Commission issued another advisory opinion among several dealing with products of foreign origin or containing significant components originating in foreign countries.

(b) In reply to a request, the Commission advised an American manufacturer that he may not place labels "Made in U.S.A." on garments manufactured in this country from cloth produced in a foreign country. The Commission noted that the cloth is a significant component of the finished garment. The Commission stated that "Made in U.S.A." means made in the United States of America completely and accordingly cannot be applied where a significant component originates in a foreign country. The Commission suggested that such labels on the proposed garments might violate section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. [33 F.R. 6158, Apr. 23, 1968]

§ 15.236 Foreign country of origin disclosure of imported picture compo

nents.

(a) The Commission rendered an advisory opinion concerning the proper marking of the origin of various imported picture components. The opinion involved two specific factual situations.

(b) In the first situation, the frame is imported from one foreign country, the picture motif is from another, and the

glass, mat, and other finishing of the product is of U.S. origin. Second, all of the components are of domestic origin, except the picture motif which is imported.

(c) In the absence of any affirmative representation that the finished product is made in the United States, or any representation that might mislead the public as to the country of origin, the Commission expressed the opinion that, under the facts as presented, the failure to mark the origin of the imported components in either of the two factual situations would not be regarded by the Commission as deceptive. Accordingly, the Commission ruled that no marking is required on the imported components beyond what is imposed by the Bureau of Customs.

[33 F.R. 6158, Apr. 23, 1968]

§ 15.237

Foreign origin disclosure on containers of repackaged toy kits.

(a) The Commission rendered an advisory opinion in regard to the question of whether it is necessary to disclose the foreign origin on the container of various imported toys packaged therein.

(b) Under the factual situation presented to it, the requesting party imports plastic articles in bulk which are, whenever possible, marked as to their foreign origin. Moreover, the imported articles are repackaged in the United States for resale, and sometimes domestically made components are added, and at other times components from another foreign country are also added. The imported components come principally from two foreign countries. There is no fixed percentage of imported components in each kit and the amount may vary as much as 1-75 percent, and only a few of the toy kits contain wholly imported components. The toys are sealed in the container and prospective purchasers cannot examine the goods prior to the purchase thereof in order to be apprised of the foreign origin markings thereon.

(c) Based upon its understanding of the facts and because of the special circumstances presented by the product and the packaging thereof, the Commission expressed the opinion that it would be appropriate to mark the container in substance as follows: "Some items or components of items are made in (name of foreign country) and (name of foreign country)."

[33 F.R. 6534, Apr. 30, 1968]

§ 15.238 Clearance denied for proposed merger of substantial local independent producer of a food product and a leading national processor and distributor of the same product.

(a) In an advisory opinion the Federal Trade Commission denied clearance to a substantial local independent producer of a particular food product to sell its assets or capital stock to a leading national processor and distributor of the same product.

(b) The Commission noted that, while the two companies do not now sell their product in each other's markets, they appear to be potential competitors of each other. The national company appears to rank as fourth largest distributor nationally of the product involved, and first in several cities with very substantial shares of the markets. The local company ranks second among all sellers of this food product in one principal metropolitan market, first there among the independents, and has enjoyed a substantial share of the market for many years. The merger would be a (geographic) market extension for the national company, eliminating each as a potential competitor of the other and removing the local independent from competition. The proposed merger would appear to violate section 7 of the Clayton Act and consequently the Commission must refuse to grant the premerger clearance requested. [33 F.R. 6534, Apr. 30, 1968]

§ 15.239 Net weight labeling of mesquite chips.

(a) The Commission rendered an advisory opinion to a manufacturer of mesquite chips, a product designed to flavor food cooked with charcoal.

(b) In the advisory opinion, the Commission dealt with two questions. The first question involved section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the propriety of such claims in labeling as whether the product will impart "real western barbecue" flavor to food and whether it may properly be labeled as mesquite chips. Second, under section 4 of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, is it proper to state the net weight as "32 OZ. (2 LBS.)" if the weight may vary as much as 2 ounces either way after it is shipped into interstate commerce, depending upon the presence or absence of humidity, and the package in fact contains 32 ounces when it is packaged?

(c) Passing upon the first question, the Commission said that it had no objection to the proposed claims in the labeling insofar as section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act is concerned.

*

(d) With respect to the second question, the Commission ruled that the proposed declaration of net weight complies with section 4 of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act and comes within the variations in stated weight permitted under $ 500.22(b) of this chapter. This section permits: "Variations from the stated weight * when caused by customary and ordinary exposure, after the commodity is introduced into interstate commerce, to conditions which normally occur in good distribution practice and which unavoidably result in change of weight or measure." In arriving at this conclusion, the Commission said that it has assumed that good distribution practices will be followed in the marketing of the product which unavoidably result in the change of weight in a relatively small percentages of cases, and that an overage is as likely to occur as often as a loss in weight.

(e) The Commission's opinion also advised the requesting party of certain technical requirements of its regulations, such as the location of the declaration of net weight, the exact size of the declaration in relation to the area of the principal display panel, and other information relating to the identity and location of the manufacturer of the product. [33 F.R. 6534, Apr. 30, 1968]

§ 15.240 Use of symbols and names having fur-bearing animal connotations in labeling textile fiber products. (a) The Commission was requested to render an opinion with respect to the labeling of textile fiber products manufactured so as to simulate a fur or fur product.

(b) The requesting party proposed to use a word closely resembling the name of a fur-bearing animal, the fur of which is commonly used in the manufacture of garments, in association with a pile fabric simulating that fur.

(c) In the Commission's view, the use of the proposed term to describe such a fabric would be violative of that part of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act which makes deceptive acts or practices in commerce unlawful. [33 F.R. 6535, Apr. 30, 1968]

§ 15.241

Proposed promotional allowance program based on pyramiding sales of customers rejected.

(a) The Commission advised a requesting party that violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act would result from the adoption of a proposed sales promotion plan described in essence as follows:

(b) A certain sum of money would be reserved from the proceeds of a sale to a first customer. That customer, if he wished to participate in the sales promotion program, would be paid up to one quarter of the reserved sum as commission on sales to ten additional customers. The first customer would also be paid up to one quarter of the reserved sum on sales made by his customers to yet another generation of customers and so through a fourth generation.

(c) The tabulation distributed to potential purchasers of the requesting party's merchandise showed that the original participant, in theory, might benefit from the efforts of 11,100 salespersons.

(d) This in the Commission's judgment was beyond the realm of possibility. The return to any given participant would unquestionably be a great deal less than the theoretically achievable amount set forth; more often than not it would be negligible. The initial purchaser would not surely benefit, if at all, beyond that amount which he can gain through his own efforts. Any further amount which he might receive would accrue to him sheerly through chance.

[33 F.R. 6860, May 7, 1968] § 15.242

Necessity for disclosing the country of origin of imported ink. (a) The Commission was requested to render an advisory opinion with regard to the necessity for disclosing the foreign origin of ink which is imported from Germany. The ink is imported in 50-liter drums and resold to the consumer in 3/4 and 2-ounce bottles.

(b) The opinion advised that in the Commission's view the country of origin of this ink must be disclosed in a clear and conspicuous manner on the bottles in which it is sold and, if the ink is packaged in separate boxes, on the boxes themselves in such a manner as to be readily seen by prospective purchasers. The opinion added that neither directly nor indirectly could it be implied that the ink is manufactured in the United States. [33 F.R. 6860, May 7, 1968]