In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 COSVETIC LABORATORIES
 P. O. Box 10101
 Atlanta, GA 30319
 P. O. Box 14048
 Atlanta, GA 30324
 P. O. Box 95543
 Atlanta, GA 30347
 P. O. Box 10225
 Atlanta, GA 30319

 HEAD START
 P. O. Box 10064
 Atlanta, GA 30319

 P.S. Docket No. 7/38;  
 
 12/09/80
 
 Cohen, James A.  

 APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT:
 Daniel S. Greenberg, Esq.
 Consumer Protection Division
 Law Department
 United States Postal Service
 Washington, DC 20260

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 Christopher S. Barnard, Esq.
 Katz, Paller & Land
 470 East Paces Ferry Road
 Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30305

Complainant has filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Postal Service Decision dated August 21, 1980, denying its petition for supplemental order. The petition which was the subject of the Postal Service Decision alleged that Respondent was evading the provisions of Mail Stop Order No. 80-6 through the mail order sale of "The Nail System Vitamins" and "Vitamins for Your Nails" at seven addresses not covered by the mail stop order. The petition was denied on the grounds that Complainant had not sustained its burden of establishing that Respondent continues to sell its products by means of representations previously found to be false. Specifically, with respect to the grounds on which the petition was based the decision stated that (1) " u nder such circumstances the subsequent solicitation of the previously advertised product is not alone sufficient to establish that persons receiving the solicitation will purchase the product on the basis of their recollection of claims previously made;" and (2) " w hile the name of the product can certainly be a representation of efficacy, it has not been persuasively shown to be in this case." In the motion for reconsideration Complainant states its disagreement with these conclusions.

Complainant appears to read the Postal Service Decision on the petition as holding that in no case can previously made claims or the name of a product serve as a basis for the issuance of a supplemental order. The decision does not so hold. The decision holds that Complainant has not established in this case that either the previously made claims or the product name support the issuance of a supplemental order. A review of Complainant's arguments in support of its motion for reconsideration does not establish that the result reached in the decision is in error. Complainant's arguments are essentially an amplification of the contentions contained in the petition. Although it now cites Warner-Lambert Co. v. F.T.C., 562 F.2d 749 (D.C. Cir. 1977) cert. denied 435 U.S. 950 (1978) and Kurzon v. United States Postal Service, 539 F.2d 788 (1st Cir. 1976), both of which are factually distinguishable and not controlling, it does not raise any argument which was not considered in connection with the original decision nor has it shown that the original decision contains an error of fact or law.

The motion for reconsideration is denied.