JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS statement is supported either before or after sale by a false declaration in some written form (say an invoice), then the two together may constitute an offence. A customer asked for New Zealand meat and, at his request, the butcher wrote "NM" on the invoice. These letters were meaningless, and not used in that trade, but he explained verbally to the customer that they meant "New Zealand." This was held to be a false trade description. Of course, if goods are not offered for sale at all, any amount of false representations may be made about them with impunity. The Acts give a detailed definition of a trade description it can be summarised as any description, statement or other indication direct or indirect relating to the number or quantity, or standard of quality, or fitness, or place of, or mode of manufacture, or material composition of goods. I shall presently consider this definition in more detail. The definition also states that "the use of any figure, word, or mark, which, according to the custom of the trade, is commonly taken to be an indication of any of the above matters, shall be deemed to be a trade descrip- tion within the meaning of this Act." This addition means that it is not essential that words alone should be used to describe the goods in order to create an offence. A false trade description is separately defined by the Act as "a trade description which is false or misleading in a material respect as regards the goods to which it is applied, and includes every alteration of a trade descrip- tion, whether by way of addition, eftacement or otherwise, where that altera- tion makes the description false or misleading in a material respect." In this definition the word "misleading" (which was first introduced by the 1953 Act) means simply "likely to be misunderstood, or mistaken." The distinc- tion between "false" and "misleading" can be illustrated by examples: To describe wool mixture socks as "pure wool" is false. To use the words "less than half the price you would normally pay for an all-wool dress" on a cotton and wool mixture dress is misleading. When during this paper I use the word "false" it can be taken to include "misleading." I should also point out that the expression "in a material respect" means that the misdescription, etc. must be to a substantial or relevant degree. The 1953 Act introduced another very important new provision, which for the sake of clarity I will divide into two: (1) that anything likely to be mistaken for a trade description shall be treated as if it is a trade description and (2) that if it is likely to be mistaken for a trade description it shall be treated as one even if it is not a trade description at all. This sounds Irish but if you will recall the second example which I have just given of the wool mixture dress you will see what I mean. 214

THE MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT Let me summarise the position so far as we have gone. A statement or description is considered to be a false trade description in the following circumstances: ß First, if it is a false statement, whether direct or indirect, under the various headings which I have mentioned that is if it concerns quality or weight, etc. Secondly, if by altering a trade description a false trade description is created. Thirdly, if, although it is a trade mark, it is also a false trade descrip- tion. Fourthly, if it is likely to be mistaken for a trade description. Fifthly, if, although not on the face of it a trade description at all, it can be mistaken by a purchaser for a trade description. Unless a trade description falls under one of the headings I have men- tioned then it is not a trade description and does not constitute an offence under the Act. Thus a mere claim as to the value of the goods--"worth twice the money," or the use of vague superlatives, such as "everyone uses," "the best in the world," "the finest value in the market," are not trade descriptions, unless they are related to a particular standard for the goods in question. But, as I have said, the 1953 Act provides that anything likely to be mistaken for a trade description is deemed to be one, and so a form of words which is likely to be mistaken by a purchaser for a trade description may create an offence. I have mentioned that a trade description, if entirely verbal, does not fall under the Act but this does not mean that to be a false trade description it must be in written or printed words, for it may, and often does, take the form of a picture, or an indication by means of get-up. One example is the use of a tartan label on a bottle of whisky, which would indicate to the ordinary purchaser that it contained Scotch whisky. Similarly, a picture of sheep used in connection with a garment would indicate that the article was made of wool. To constitute an offence there is no need for the purchaser to be actually deceived or mislead a false description on goods which are merely displayed as being on offer for sale is as much an offence as actually selling them. And it is not a defence to say that no purchaser would be likely to be deceived. A beer bearing a Bass label sold in another brewer's bottle led to a conviction. I shall now try to explain more fully the meaning of a trade description, and incidentally of a false trade description, and the best way is to go in detail through the seven definitions of a trade description given by the Act. The first definition concerns a description as to the number, quantity, measure, gauge or weight of goods. This is, of course, a very common 215