[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 139 (Thursday, July 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37334-37335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17878]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 236


Guide for Avoiding Deceptive Use of Word ``Mill'' in the Textile 
Industry

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Rescission of the guide for avoiding deceptive use of word 
``Mill'' in the textile industry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (the ``Commission''), as part of 
its periodic review of all its guides and rules, announces that it has 
concluded a review of its Guide for Avoiding Deceptive Use of Word 
``Mill'' in the Textile Industry (``Guide'' or ``Use of Word `Mill' 
Guide''). The Commission has decided to rescind the Guide.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ann M. Guler, Investigator, Federal Trade Commission, Los Angeles 
Regional Office, 11000 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 13209, Los Angeles, CA 
90024, (310) 235-7890.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    The Use of Word `Mill' Guide was issued by the Commission in 
1967.\1\ The Guide states that the word ``mill'' should not be used in 
the corporate, business, or trade name of any person or concern 
handling textiles, unless the person or concern actually owns and 
operates or controls the manufacturing facility in which all textile 
materials sold under that name are produced. The Guide includes 
examples where use of the word ``mill'' has been found to be deceptive.

    \1\ Industry guides are administrative interpretations of laws 
administered by the Commission for the guidance of the public in 
conducting its affairs in conformity with legal requirements. 16 CFR 
1.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 15, 1994, the Commission published a Notice in the Federal 
Register soliciting comment on the Guide.\2\ Specifically, the 
Commission solicited comments on the costs and benefits of the Guide 
and its regulatory and economic effect. The comment period closed June 
14, 1994. The Commission received three comments in response to the 
Notice. They are discussed in Part II below.

    \2\ 59 FR 18005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Comments Received

    The Commission received comments from three organizations: The 
American Textile Manufacturers Institute (ATMI), National Association 
of Hosiery Manufacturers (NAHM), and the Better Business Bureau of 
Nashville/Middle Tennessee, Inc. All of the commenters supported the 
continuation of the Guide in its present form. The ATMI and NAHM both 
stated that the Guide is beneficial to the textile manufacturing 
industry and to consumers because it prevents possible false claims by 
companies that may distribute but do not actually manufacture textile 
products. They further stated that the guide does not impose costs or 
burdens on industry or on consumers. The Better Business Bureau of 
Nashville/Middle Tennessee, Inc.'s comment asserted that the Guide is 
necessary ``to prevent misleading the public and unfair competition in 
the marketplace.''
    The Nashville/Middle Tennessee BBB comment also raised the issue of 
other words used in trade names. The BBB recommended that the 
Commission restrict the use of words such as ``factory'' and 
``manufacturer'' in corporate, business, or trade names ``unless the 
entity so named actually owns, operates or controls the manufacturing 
facility which produces all merchandise being advertised and/or sold 
under the name.''

III. Conclusion

    The Commission has concluded its regulatory review of the Guide for 
Avoiding Deceptive Use of the Word ``Mill'' by rescinding the Guide. 
The Commission has no evidence of circumstances associated with the use 
of the word ``mill'' that would require special protection for 
consumers or guidance for industry, such as evidence that consumers 
currently believe that textile industry entities with the word ``mill'' 
in their names are engaged in the manufacture of textiles. Today, the 
word ``mill'' is commonly used in business names both within and 
outside the textile industry. For example, many shopping malls use the 
word ``mill'' or ``mills'' in their names. The word ``mill'' is also 
frequently used in the names of businesses, including retail stores or 
shopping malls, that occupy the building or site of a former textile 
mill. Additionally, the word ``mill'' is used in various enterprises 
outside of the textile 

[[Page 37335]]
industry. For example, firms in the food production or food service 
industry may use the word ``mill'' because of its association with 
grinding grain into flour. These uses would not be covered by the 
Guide, because the businesses do not handle textiles. Other businesses 
may use the word ``mill'' in a creative name that has nothing to do 
with the original meanings of the word for textile manufacturing, grain 
processing, or any other form of materials processing. The Commission 
considers it unlikely that such uses of the word ``mill'' mislead 
consumers in any material way in their purchasing decisions or 
otherwise cause any consumer injury.
    Given the many and varied uses of the term ``mill'' in today's 
lexicon, the Commission has concluded that the Guide is obsolete. If, 
in the future, certain uses of this term (or any other term) in 
business or trade names are determined to be materially misleading, the 
Commission can address such practices under Section 5 of the Federal 
Trade Commission Act.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 236

    Advertising, trade name, textiles, mill.

    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-17878 Filed 7-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M