Etablissements Rigaud v. Federal Trade Commission
| Decision Date | 04 February 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 3.,3. |
| Parties | ETABLISSEMENTS RIGAUD, Inc., et al. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Walter L. Post, of New York City, for petitioners.
W. T. Kelley, Chief Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, Martin A. Morrison, Asst. Chief Counsel, James T. Welch, S. Brogdyne Teu, II, and James W. Nichol, Sp. Attys., all of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before SWAN, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
This is a petition to review an order of the Federal Trade Commission directing the petitioners which, for convenience, we shall speak of as Rigaud and Fougera, to cease and desist from specified acts of alleged unfair competition.
Rigaud is a New York corporation engaged in compounding perfumes and cosmetics which it sells solely to Fougera, another New York corporation. Some of the merchandise thus sold by Rigaud is delivered to Fougera in New York, while some is shipped to the latter's customers on its order. The goods Fougera has so purchased it sells throughout the United States. The various ingredients used to make up the perfumes are combined by Rigaud with one another and with domestic alcohol at its place of business at 79 Bedford Street, New York City. When the ingredients are thus compounded they are bottled and packaged for sale. Some of Rigaud's officers and five of its eight directors reside in Paris and to a considerable extent direct the business policy of the company, but Rigaud does not maintain any office there as a corporation.
There was evidence before the Commission tending to show that the public has a preference for perfumes manufactured or compounded in France. It is established that Rigaud compounded all the perfumes it sold in the City of New York and made them from ingredients both domestic and imported.
In spite of this, it used labels and cartons for its perfumes on which was printed:
I Rigaud G O Paris R A R ----------- R I G A U D ----------- Paris — New York ------ Eau De Toilette Un Air Embaumé Rigaud Paris
On letterheads, statements, invoices and other business stationery Rigaud and Fougera placed the following:
Established 1849 E. FOUGERA & COMPANY, INC Parfumerie Division 79 Bedford St. at Barrow St New York Sole Importer to RIGAUD-PARFUMEUR 16 Rue de la Paix, Paris ESTABLISSEMENTS RIGAUD INC 8, Rue Vivienne 16, Rue de la Paix, PARIS Successor to Parfumerie Rigaud Inc. Laboratoire De Pharmacologie Inc. R ----------- R I G A U D ----------- Paris — France 79 Bedford St., New York These inscriptions on labels, cartons and stationery were found by the Commission to have indicated a French origin for the perfume itself, and not merely for the ingredients contained in it. They were found to have a tendency to mislead the public and to have unfairly diverted trade to Rigaud and Fougera from their competitors. During...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Charles of the Ritz Dist. Corp. v. Federal Trade Com'n
...Commission, 2 Cir., 105 F.2d 988, certiorari denied 308 U.S. 616, 60 S.Ct. 261, 84 L.Ed. 515; see, also, Etablissements Rigaud, Inc., v. Federal Trade Commission, 2 Cir., 125 F.2d 590; Parfums Corday v. Federal Trade Commission, 2 Cir., 120 F.2d 808; Fioret Sales Co. v. Federal Trade Commis......
-
California Apparel Creators v. Wieder of California
...v. Federal Trade Comm., 2 Cir., 139 F.2d 1019, certiorari denied 323 U.S. 763, 65 S.Ct. 116, 89 L.Ed. 611; Etablissements Rigaud, Inc., v. Federal Trade Comm., 2 Cir., 125 F.2d 590; El Moro Cigar Co. v. Federal Trade Comm., 4 Cir., 107 F.2d 429; H. N. Heusner & Son v. Federal Trade Comm., 3......
-
Harsam Distributors, Inc. v. FTC, 167
...2 Cir., 1944, 139 F.2d 1019, certiorari denied 1944, 323 U.S. 763, 65 S.Ct. 116, 89 L.Ed. 611; Etablissements Rigaud, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 2 Cir., 1942, 125 F.2d 590; Parfums Corday, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 2 Cir., 1941, 120 F.2d 808; Fioret Sales Co., Inc. v. Federal......
-
Houbigant v. Federal Trade Commission
...which the Commission's order imposes is substantially the same as in other cases which we have approved. Establissements Rigaud v. Federal Trade Comm., 2 Cir., 125 F.2d 590, 591; Parfums Corday v. Federal Trade Comm., 2 Cir., 120 F.2d 808; Fioret Sales Co. v. Federal Trade Comm., 2 Cir., 10......