JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS form of trade description. In a case not connected with this Act, a distin- guished judge said, "A ton does not mean about a ton, nor a yard about a yard" and the same principle applies here. An i•stance of the vagueness of measurements commonly to be found is in the sizes for sheets and blankets the term "double or single bed size" may therefore cause misunderstanding you will find, however, that reputable firms give the actual measurements. An example of statutory provision is the Sale of Food Act, 1926, which provides that a statement as to the weight or measure of pre-packed foods is deemed to refer to the net weight, unless otherwise specified. And, of course, a large part of the law is covered by the extensive Weights and Measures legislation. If there is uncertainty about the weight or quantity of contents the manufacturer should declare it, as, of course, is generally done with a box of matches. You will find that other goods, particularly tobacco, bear words about evaporation as a safeguard against misdescription under this section. The second definition concerns the standard of quality of any goods according to a classification commonly used or recognised in the trade. This is a new offence, added by the 1953 Act. In the original Bill there was no reference to a standard based on a trade classification, and these qualifying words were only added after much discussion. It would be interesting to speculate upon the position which would now exist if it were an offence to falsely describe the standard of quality of goods as such, but this is not now relevant, and all I will say is that a standard of quality imposed without reference to any existing criterion would only lead to endless and unnecessary trouble. We have, therefore, much cause to be grateful that the clause was amended. It is important that we should know what exactly this addition to the Act implies. It is clear that if there is any direct or indirect indication on the goods themselves about their standard of quality according to some trade classification, then if the indication is false or misleading, an offence under the Act has arisen. The specifications of the British Standards Institution, when generally accepted by a particular trade, are an example of the trade classifications to which the Act refers. The Institution allows manufacturers of goods made according to their standards to bear the "kite mark" which is the registered trade mark of the Institute. To apply such a "kite mark" to goods which do not comply with the standard demanded by the Institute would be an offence under this sub-clause. The standard required by a trade can also be indicated by words. Thus, to describe a garment or material as "fadeless" indicates that it conforms to a particular standard adopted by the textile trade, and if the article does not so conform (even though it is in fact not subject to fading) then an offence will have been committed. What then is the effect of this provision on the synthetic materials and substances which are so common to-day ? A 216

THE MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT synthetic product may be just as good as the natural product and be accepted as such in the trade but as the substance is not the same, even though the quality may be as good, the standard of quality is not the same. There are many other terms like "fadeless" which come within the provisions of this clause, such as "unshrinkable," "rust-proof," "washproof," "sun-resisting," "non-creasing," "non-flaking," "washable," and so on. If such terms imply or indicate a standard of quality known and used in the trade, then they may be legally applied to articles only if they comply with the recognised specification. Even if they do not indicate any trade classifica- tion at all, they may still be offences under the Act, under the provisions of the next, third, definition. The third definition, which was also added by the 1953 Act, is probably the most important, as well as being the most controversial. It concerns the fitness for purpose, strength, performance or behaviour of goods. A case ß under the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, may serve as a guide to the future applica- tion of this clause. There it was held that if goods bear a specific claim as to performance, and a buyer finds that they are not up to the standard of performance claimed, then they are obviously not fit for the stipulated purpose. Descriptions which directly or by implication concern fitness, strength, performance or behaviour commonly appear on goods of all classes, and it would be difficult not to use such a description when elaborating about an article offered for sale. A tooth paste which claims to prevent pyorrhcea, a preparation to dispel kitchen odours, a toilet preparation or carbolic soap for the purpose of dispelling body odours, are just a few instances from your own world. Then there are many words used frequently by advertisers who are not always conscious of their true meaning--"mothproof," "water- proof" {which is more than showerproof), "unbreakable," "won't damage delicate fabrics," "won't shrink woollens," "heat-resisting glass," "silent typewriter"--all these may be false trade descriptions if performance does not live up to the claim. Cosmetics have never been subjected to close scrutiny hitherto, but the use of certain phrases may have to be carefully reconsidered--"will not harm delicate skins," "cleans the pores in one application," "kissproof" and "indelible," "non-greasy," "non-staining." There are so many of these which are already rather dubious-- "Removes spots and blemishes overnight" "Restores colour to faded hair" "Grows new hair" Even the vaguer forms may now be open to suspicion-- "Promotes healthy growth of the hair" "Arrests the receding hair line" "Gives the skin a young, fresh, dewy condition." A mere comparison, however, is not necessarily objectionable under this 217