"'White" Pine Controversy

(Continued from Page 34) direct tenclency to result and has resulted in a widespread misconception-of the comparative qualities, characteristics,' commercial values, and even the identity of forest products made from Pinus ponderosa on the one hand and from species of genuine white pine on the other, and has actually c^onfused t-he minds of many of the trade and of ultimate consumers and has misled and deceived them as to the actual and true comparative values of forest products made from the said species. The said use of the aforesaid words has the capacity and a direct tendency to produce and in many instinceJ has produced numerous results unfair to competitors and to tlie public and, among other such, the results described as follows, to wit:

(a) Spurious market equality in both the trade and pubtic eitimation in certain instances h,as been -given to iorest products made from Pinus ponderosa with those made fiom genuine white pines for uses whereil genuine white pines -excel Pinus ponderosa as herein in Paragraph Six and Seven set forth.

(b) There has been brought about public doubt and miiapprehension as to the respective- qualities.of forest prodirits made frorn various species of pine -native to the Pacific Coast and the uses which may most advantageously be made of them to the loss and detriment of the public and of competitors of respondents. The reputation and public esteem of forest products as regards the qualities in wtrictr said Pinus lambertiana surpasses Pinus ponderosa as set forth in Paragraph Six and Seven hereinabove' Many buyers and prospeclivi buyers, as a result of the aforesaid miinaming of Pinus ponderosa as and for white pine and as a result of their ensuing experience therewith, have come to the mistaken and erroneous belief that none of the Pacific Coast species of pine possesses qualities equal to or approaching those described in Paragraph Six hereof a-s t66 qualitiei for which Pinus strobus has long been noted'

(") Jobbers and retailers in many instances have been and stili are misled into buying Pinus ponderosa in the belief that they thus secure a genuine white pine having the aforesaid qualities and characteristics thereof of the comparatively -high degree described in Paragraph Six, an-d irave been and are tlius induced to buy forest products made from Pinus ponderosa for resale for purposes to which they are as an average comparatively ill-adapted.

(d) Such retailers as have known the distinction betwien forest products made from Pinqs ponderosa and those made frbm genuine white pines, but who have desired to gain by substitution of Pinus ponderosa for genuine white pine products in their sales to customers, have been enabled to mislead and have been aided in misleading their customers into the belief that Pinus ponderosa was a genuine white pine with the same excellent qualities possessed by genuine-white pines and in the same-high d^e-gre-e, as in Parigraphs Six and Seven set forth, and have filled orders for ginulne white pirie with ponderosa pine.

(") Such retailers as have been in ignorance of the distinttion in qualities and characteristics between Pinus ponderosa and genuine white pines have been caused to sell to the public fbrest products made from Pt-!t: ponderosa as and ?or genuine white pine to consumers ilesiring the qualities of lumber made from genuine white pine.

(f) Retail dealers having stocked their y-ards with Pinus ponderosa purchased and [o be sold by them as and for genuine white pine in various instances have not desired ind do not clesiie to stock their yards with forest products made from said genuine white pine, thus depriving manufacturers of genuine white pine products of numerous market outlets.

(S) Numerous builders, contractors, architects and ulti-.ii'.ott..t-ers have been and are misled into the advocacy, recommendation, adoption and use of Pinus ponderos-a in the belief that it is g-enuine white pine and has the aforesaid high degree of said described qualities.

(h) Respondenis and other manufacturers by misnaming a"d miidescribing Pinus ponderosa as a genuine.white piie have been enabled on numerous occasions and now are enabled to secure a higher price for their said forest products than thev could iecure therefor in competition iuith senuine white pine products if a true name and designatioi of their said irroducts were used; and have been enabled to fill and havi actually filled orders for genuine white pine with consignments of ponderosa pine.

(i) Manufacturers of forest p-roducts made from said g.ioin. white pine, frequently ihrough the ignorance.of the buver or of the public as to the commercial qualittes distingirishing genuine white pine from Pinus ponderosa, are unable to sell their said products to customers at a hieher price then customers will pay for forest products *id. f-- Pinus ponderosa when the latter are misnamed and misdescribed as white Pine.

(j) The average F.O.B. mill cost of forest products *"i" fto* said gEnuine species of white pine excee{!. the average f.o.b. mill cost of forest products made from Pinus ponde"rosa and the said misdescription of Pinus ponderosa is white pine has a direct tendency to cause and has at times cauJed manufacturers of genuine white pine proiucts to lose sales and has at times caused them to make sales at or below actual cost of production and distribution.

(k) Manufacttirers of forest products made from Pinus pond"rot" who describe their prbducts as pondosa pine -as hereinabove in Paragraph Eight described are at a sales disadvantage as contiasftd with such competitors, respondents and ot-hers, as misname and misdescribe their products, likewise made'from Pinus ponderosa, as white pine, ani who wrongfully imply and at times declare that their. products posseis the afor6said superior commercial. qualities for various uses that are possessed by genuine white pine.

(l) The employment of Pinus ponderosa in lieu of genti"e *ttite pine^by builders, contrictors, architects and the seneral po'bli. foi uses wherein it is exposed to decay, and tor whiih genuine white pine, by virtue of its aforesaid greater duribitity was and is-preferred and desired in con' irast with Pinui ponderosa, has conduced to and resulted in and still conduies to and results in the waste of forest products through the necessity to replace Pinus ponderosa more frequentl| than replacements would be or would have' been necess ^ry h^d' white pine been used in the first instance.

PARAGRAPH TEN: The practices and methods of competition engaged in and by respondents as hereinabove set iorth have"tlie capacity ind J direct, substantial and d"rrg.roo, tendency t6 miilead and deceive the trade and pubiic with regard [o the identity and the comparative quali- 'ties and valuei of said above described forest products and have actually so misled and deceived in-such-regard' .The said practices and methods of competition of -respondents are against the public interest and constitute unfair methods of coimpetition'in commerce between the states and with foreign'nations in violation of Section 5 of the aforesaid act o"f Congress known as the Federal Trade Commission Act.

WHEREFORE, THE PREMISES CONSIDERIED thc Federal Trade Commission on this 23td day of. May, l9D, now here issues this complaint against said respondents'