Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner

• Decision Date: 01 June 1925
• Docket Number: No. 976.,976.
• Parties: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. KLESNER.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

6 F.2d 701 (1925)

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. KLESNER.

No. 976.

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

Submitted November 5, 1924.

Decided June 1, 1925.

C. M. Neff and A. F. Busick, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

H. S. Barger and C. R. Ahalt, both of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice, and BARBER, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

This is an original proceeding brought in this court by the Federal Trade Commission, hereafter referred to as "the Commission," under the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 717 (Comp. St. §§ 8836a-8836k), to compel the enforcement of an order issued by the Commission against the respondent, Alfred Klesner, requiring him to cease and desist from using the word "Shade Shop," standing alone or in conjunction with other words, as an identification of the business conducted by him, and forbidding its use on advertisements, signs, stationery, telephone and business directories, trade lists, or otherwise, in connection with the conduct of his business in the District of Columbia.

It appears that the Commission directed an investigation to be made of respondent's use of the sign "Shade Shop" in connection with the conduct of his business in this District, and, as a result of the investigation, issued the above order requiring him to discontinue its use, and to report to the Commission within 30 days from the date of the service of the order, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he had complied with the order. Upon failure of the respondent to report as ordered, the present action was brought originally in this court to compel respondent's compliance with the finding and order of the Commission.

At the outset, we are confronted by a question of jurisdiction. Section 4 of the act, defining the jurisdiction of the Commission, among other things, provides as follows: "`Commerce' means commerce among the several states or with foreign nations, or in any territory of the United States or in the District of Columbia, or between any such territory and another, or between any such territory and any state or foreign nation, or between the District of Columbia and any state or territory or foreign nation."

Section 5 of the act, defining the method of procedure to be invoked by the Commission in making its investigations and enforcing its orders, among other things, provides: "If such person, partnership, or corporation fails or neglects to obey such order of the Commission while the same is in effect, the Commission may apply to the Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States, within any circuit where the method of competition in question was used or where such person, partnership, or corporation resides or carries on business, for the enforcement of its order, and shall certify and file with its application a transcript of the entire record in the proceeding, including all the testimony taken and the report and order of the Commission."

There is nothing in the act specifically providing that the Commission, to enforce an order within the District of Columbia, may bring an action in the Court of Appeals of the District; nor will the fact that the District of Columbia is specifically embraced by Congress within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission justify the implication that its orders may be enforced in the Court of Appeals of the District. This logically...