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

JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS clause thus "warm as wool" and "strong as nylon" will not be misleading if the comparisons are in fact true, as they may well be. For pharmaceutical preparations this clause may be difficult to enforce because it would involve batches of experts for each side, and conflicting evidence, all of which would make it very difficult to have consistent deci- sions. In the U.S.A. the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act imposes a close watch on all medical claims in advertising, and has resulted in hundreds of cases in which, however, it has been almost impossible for the judges to decide between conflicting expert evidence. The fourth definition is a simple one. It concerns the description of the place or country in which the goods are made or produced. Its purpose is, of course, to ensure that the public are not deceived by foreign goods masquerading as home produced, or by those with a foreign cachet which are in fact made in this country. This provision must be distinguished from that in the Merchandise Marks Act of 1936, which makes a declaration of the place of origin compulsory on imported goods which have been specially designated by Order in Council. This provision is rarely, if ever, used in respect of goods with no claim to foreign manufacture. If Melton Mowbray pies are not made there, but in London, the public will not necessarily be deceived. Far different, however, if the pies are made in Holland, but are not so marked--then an offence is caused. Similarly, the use of the English language may be false or misleading if the impression is given that the goods were produced in this country, when in fact they were made abroad. In India, cosmetics made locally but bearing only an English label with the name and address of a London finn led to a prosecution and to heavy fines. A false indication of the origin of goods, as in this Indian example, may be indirect, and this is a common form of false description. Most of the cases on this subject have concerned cigars, and especially the gay pictures which decorate their boxes. A box bearing a picture of a Spanish lady, or a map of Cuba, or even Spanish words, would be held to indicate that the cigars came from Havana, and so manufacturers who place such decorations on British or Jamaican cigars must also indicate clearly that the contents do not come from Havana. For that matter, even if only Havana tobacco is used, if the cigars are manufactured in this country, they must not be described as Havana cigars. Another instance of an offence under this clause is the placing of a tartan label on a bottle of spirits coming from Japan, which would lead a customer to suppose he was buying Scotch whisky. Of course, there are many articles bearing place names which can no longer be considered in any degree deceptive, although they are no longer made locally for example, Chelsea buns, Turkish delight, Epsom salts, French chalk, Worcester sauce. 218