WM.H.WISE CO.,INC. - Order Requiring Cessation of Fictitious Trade Name Use (Docket 6288)

Sep 16, 2026

Initial decision in FTC proceedings concerning alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act by WM.H.WISE CO.,INC. and related respondents. The complaint centers on use of a fictitious trade name, “Publishers' Protective Service,” to collect allegedly delinquent beauty-care correspondence course accounts while misleading the public to believe it was an independent organization. Although debts were found lawful and demandable, the collection methods were ruled unfair and deceptive under Section 5(a)(1), and respondents’ practices were ordered to cease.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatPDF

Pages20

Reading Time7 min

AccessFree to download

Initial Decision by Loren H. Laughlin, Hearing Examiner

Allegations and established facts

Findings regarding debts and collection methods

Consent order scope and procedural timeline

Hearing, evidence, and contested issues

IN THE MATTER OF WM.H.WISE CO.,INC.,ET AL.1 ORDER,ETC.,IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THEFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Docket 6288.Complaint,Jan.17,1955—Decision,Nov.1,1956 Order requiring a New York City seller of a correspondence course in beautycare,together with its parent corporation,to cease using a fictitious tradename—such as“Publishers'Protective Service”—to collect and enforcetheir past-due accounts and representing it falsely as an independentorganization. Mr.William Tincher for the Commission.Mr.Thomas B.Scott,of Washington,D.C.,for respondents. # INITIAL DECISION BY LOREN H.LAUGHLIN,HEARING ExAMINER The complaint in this proceeding alleges violations of the FederalTrade Commission Act,in that in substance said respondents haveemployed the device of a fictitious trade name,"Publishers'Protec-tive Service”for the purpose of collecting in the course of inter-state commerce allegedly delinquent accounts due to the two corpo-rate respondents.It is established without dispute between the par-ties that said“Publishers'Protective Service”is in fact entirelyowned and operated by the respondent John J.Crawley,who isregistered under the said trade name as a collection agency in NewYork City.It is also undisputed that he is the president of eachof the two respondent corporations,and the officer thereof who for-mulates,controls and manages all of their business policies.It isalleged in the complaint,however,that the use of this fictitioustrade name by respondents does in fact deceive and mislead and alsotends to deceive and mislead the public into believing that said“Pub-lishers'Protective Service”is an entirely independent and separateorganization from that of the corporate respondents and is employedby them as such a separate organization to collect their accounts. This initial decision finds generally that the facts alleged in thecomplaint which are material to this case have been proved by apreponderance of the evidence by counsel supporting the complaint,with the single qualification that the debts sought to be collected byrespondents through the use of said fictitious trade name“Publish- # Decision ers'Protective Service”are not merely alleged accounts due respond-dents as claimed in the complaint,but are in fact,to all materialsubstance and effect,lawful,just and demandable debts due to re-spondent corporations.It is held herein,however,that respondents'said methods of collection are unfair and deceptive acts and practicesprohibited by the Federal Trade Commission Act,Section 5(a)(1),and that they are not purged of their unlawful character eitherbecause the debts are valid,or because the fictitious name“Publish-ers'Protective Service”is a trade name duly registered as such bythe respondent Crawley under Section 440 of the Penal Laws ofNew York State. This proceeding originally included certain charges that the cor-porate respondent,The Charming Woman,Inc.,had deceived andmisled the public by certain advertising of courses of instruction inbeauty care which said respondent prepared and published for sale.Such matters were alleged in Paragraphs Two to Six,inclusive,ofthe complaint.Those issues were fully adjudicated by the hearingexaminer's initial decision and order dated June 30,1955,upon aconsent order settlement,as authorized by Section 3.25 of the Com-mission's current Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings,effective on and after May 21,1955.Said initial decision was fullyapproved and adopted as the decision and order of the Commis-sion on August 22,1955,and thereby became final and effective onthat date as provided by said section of the Rules.Since respond-ents in such consent order proceeding stated that they admitted noviolation of law in consenting to the said decisions and orders,asthey are fully authorized to do by subsection(b)of said Section 3.25 of the Rules,none of such issues so adjudicated by consentorder have been litigated in this proceeding,nor are they consideredan

FAQs

What fictitious trade name was alleged to have been used in the case?

The complaint alleged respondents used the fictitious trade name “Publishers' Protective Service” for collecting delinquent accounts.

What did the decision say about the validity of the debts?

The decision held the debts sought to be collected were lawful and demandable, rather than merely alleged accounts due to respondents as claimed.

Why were the respondents’ collection methods considered unlawful?

The decision found the collection methods were unfair and deceptive acts and practices prohibited by the Federal Trade Commission Act, Section 5(a)(1), despite the debts being valid.

Sep 16, 2026

Upload by Emma Mercer