Gabriel H. Gladstone and Newton A. Gladstone

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

IN THE MATTER OF GABRIEL H. GLADSTONE AND NEWTON A. GLADSTONE, DOING BUSINESS AS GLADSTONE BROTHERS AND AS AARON LEONARD COMPANY COMPLAINT, FINDINGS, AND ORDER IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. :> OF AN ACT OF CO:SGRESS APPROVED SEPT. 261 '1914, AND OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED OCT. 14, 1940 Docket 4969, Complaint, Ma-11 27, 1943-Deaision, Dec. 8, 1943 Where two individuals, engaged In designing and cutting fabrics for men's and boys' clothing to be made up for them by others, and in the Interstate sale and distribution of said clothing- ( a) Represented that certain clothing was made entirely of vicuna wool fabric, through distributing It labeled "Valcuna," and bearing a likeness to a vicuna; notwithstanding the fact that said clothing was made of fabric which contained a substantial amount of other fiber; and also (b) Sold and distributed men's and boys' suits labeled ''London Park Clothes- $40.00--All Wool," when in fact such suits contained substantial amount of fiber other than wool; · 'With effect of deceiving a substantial portion of .the purchasing public into the mistaken belief that such representations were true, and of thereby induc- Ing It to purchase the said clothing; and 'Where said Individuals engaged in sale and distribution, as aforesaid, of suits and other wearing apparel, including many which were wool products within the intent and meaning of the Wood Products Labeling Act of 1939- (c) Sold and distributed such clothing misbranded in violation of aforesaid act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, in that it did not have on or affixed thereto a stamp, tag, label, or other means of Identification showing the percentage of the total fiber weight of wool, reprocessed wool; reused wool, nonwool fiber !lnd aggregate ther~of, lnclud· ing filler or adulterating matter, and proper ldentift.catlon of the manu· facturer or seller :

lleld, That such acts and practices, under the circumstances set forth, were an to the prejudice and Injury of the public and constituted untalr and deceptive acts and practices In comroerce within the i.ntent and meaning ot the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act ot 1939.

Mr. Dewitt T. Puckett for the Commission.

COl\IPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the 'Yool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and by virtue of the hut~ority vested in it by said acts, the Federal Trade Commission, aving reason to believe that Gabriel II. Gladstone and Newton A. Complaint 37F. T. 0.

Gladstone, trading and doing business as Gladstone Bros., and as Aaron· Leonard Co., hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of the said acts and the rules and regulations promulgated under the Wool Products Labeling Act o£ 1939, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondents, Gabriel H. Gladstone and Newton A. Gladstone, are copartners, trading and doing business as Gladstone Bros. and as Aaron Leonard Co. Their principal office and place of business are at 110 Fifth A venw, New York, N. Y. PAR. 2. Respondents are now, and during all times mentioned herein, have been engaged in designing and cutting fabrics which are manufactured into clothing for men and boys. The remaining manufacturing operations necessary to the completion of the clothing are performed for respondents by others.

Respondents cause and have caused said clothing when sold by them to be transported from their place of business in the State of New York to various purchasers thereof at their respective points of location in various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia. . PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of their aforesaid business respondents distributed clothing which was labeled "Vicuna," and which labels bore a likeness to a vicuna. Such labels constituted a representation that the clothing was made entirely of vicuna wool fabric, when in truth and in fact said clothing was not made entirely of vicuna wool fabric but was made of fabric which contained a substantial amount of fiber other than vicuna wool. . PAR. 4. There is a demand on the part of a substantial portion of the purchasing public for clothing manufactured of vicuna wool. PAR. 5. Respondents also sold and distributed men's and boys' suits in commerce as aforesaid which were labeled "London Park Clothes-$40.00-All Wool." In truth and in fact said suits were not made entirely of wool fabric but were made of fabric which. contained a substantial amount of fiber other than.wool. PAR. 6. The use by the respondents of the foregoing false, deceptive and misleading representations with respect to their clothing, disseminated as aforesaid, has had and now has the capacity and tendency to and does mislead and deceive a substantial portion of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that such statements, representations and advertisements are true, and has induce~ a portion of the purchasing public because of such erroneous an mistaken belief to purchase the respondents' said clothing. GLADSTONE BROTHERS, ETC. 647 645 Findings PAR. 7. Among the suits and other articles of wearing apparel sold and distributed by respondents as aforesaid since July 15, 1941, are many which are wool products within the intent and meaning of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, in that said suits and other articles of wearing apparel were composed in whole or in part of wool, reprocessed wool or reused wool, as those terms are defined in said act. Said wool products are subject to the labeling provisions of said act and said rules and regulations. ·Among the said wool products sold and distributed by respondents in commerce as aforesaid were suits and other articles of wearing apparel which were misbranded in violation of the 'Vool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the rules and regulations promulgated under such act, in that said wool products when introduced in said commerce did not have on or affixed thereto a stamp, tag, label or other means of identification or a substitute in lieu thereof, as provided by said act, showing (a) the percentage of total fiber weight of the wool product exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5 percent of said total fiber weight, of (1) wool, (2) reprocessed wool, (3) reused Wool, (4) each fiber other than wool where said percentage by weight of such fiber was 5 percent or more, and ( 5) the aggregate of all other fibers; {b) the maximum percentage of the total weight of the wool ·product of non-fibrous loading, filling or adulterating matter; (c) the name of the manufacturer of the wool product or in lieu thereof a registered number with name of a reseller under the conditions pro- 'V'ided in the rules and regulations promulgated under· such act, or the name of one or more persons subject to section 3 of the said act With respect to such wool product.

PAn. 8. The aforesaid acts, practices and methods of respondents, as herein alleged, are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. REPORT, FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTs, AND Onder Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the 'Vool Products Labeling Act of 1939, the Federal Trade Commission on the 27th day of May 1943, issued and subsequently served its complaint in this proceeding upon respondents, Gabriel ~·Gladstone and Newton A. Gladstone, copartners, trading and dolng business as Gladstone Bros., and as Aaron Leonard Co,., charging them with the use of unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce in violation of the provisions of said acts. After the issuance of said complaint, the respondents submitted an answer admitting all the material allegations of fact set forth in said complaint and waiving Findings 37 F. T. C.

all inwrvening procedure and further hearing as to said facts, and agreeing that paragraph 3 of the Commission's complaint may be considered as amended by substituting the word "Valcuna" for the word "Vicuna," the second word in the third line of said paragraph, which answer was duly filed in the office of the Commission. Thereafter this proceeding regularly came on for final· hearing before the Commission on the said complaint and answer and the Commission having duly considered the matter and being now fully advised in the premises finds that this proceeding is in the interest of the public and makes this its findings as to the facts and its conclusion drawn therefrom.

FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS PARAGRAPH 1. Respondents, Gabriel H. Gladstone and Newton .A. Gladstone, are copartners, trading and doing business as Gladstone Bros. and as Aaron Leonard Co. Their principal office and place of business are at 110 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. PAR. 2. Respondents at;e now, and during all times mentioned herein, have been engaged in designing and cutting fabrics which are manufactured into clothing for men and boys. The remaining manufacturing operations necessary to the completion of the clothing are performed for respondents by others. · Respondents cause and have caused said clothing when sold by them to be transported from their place of business in the State of New York to various purchasers thereof at their respective points of location in various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of their aforesaid business re- ' spondents distributed clothing which was labeled "Valcuna," and which labels bore a likeness to a vicuna. Such labels constituted ll representation that the clothing wa~ made entirely of vicuna wool fabric, when in truth and in fact said clothing was not made entirely of vicuna wool ftlbric but was made of fabric which contained a · substantial amount of fiber other than vicuna wool. PAR. 4. There is a demand. on the part of a substantial portion of the purchasin·g public for clothing manufactured of vicuna wool. PAR. 5. Respondents also sold and <listributed men's and boys' suits in commerce !ls aforesaid wl1ich were labeled "London )lark Clothes-$!0.00-All 'Vool." In truth and in fact said suits were not made entirely of wool fabric but were made of fabric wl1ich contained a substantial amount of fiber other than wool. PAn.. 6. The use by the re~pondents of the fon'going false, decepti~e anti misleading representations with re:;pect to their clothing, dissellll" GLADSTONE BROTHERS, ETC. 649 645 Conclusion nated as aforesaid, has had and now has the capacity and tendency to and does mislead and deceive a substantial portion of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that such statmi1ents, representations and advertisements are true, and has induced a portion of the purchasing public because of such erroneous and mistaken belief to purchase the respondents' said clothing. PAn. 7. Among the suits and other articles of wearing apparel sold and distributed by respondents as aforesaid since July 15, 1941, are many which are wool products within the intent and meaning of the vVool Products Labeling Act of 1939, in that said suits and other articles of wearing apparel were composed in whole or in part of wool, reprocessed wool or reused wool, as those terms are defined in said net. Said wool products are subject to the labeling provisions of said act and said rules and regulations. Among the said ·wool products sold and distributed by respondents in commerce as aforesaid were suits and other articles of wearing 1 apparel which were misbranded in violation of the 'Vood Products Labeling Act of 1939' and the rules and regulations promulgated Under such act, in that said wool products when introduced in said commerce did not have on or affixed thereto a stamp, tag, label or ·other means of identification or a substitute in lieu thereof, as provided by said act, showing (a) the percentage of the total fiber weight of wool product exclusive of ornamentation not e:x:ceeding 5 Percent of said total fiber weight, of (1) wool, (2) reprocessed wool, (3) reused wool, (4) each fiber other than wool where said percentage by weight of such fiber was 5 percent or more, and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers; (b) the maximum percentage of the total weight of the wool product of nonfibrous loading, filling or · adulterating matter; (a) the name of the manufacturer of the wool Product or in lieu thereof a registered number with name of a reseller under the conditions provided in the rules and regulations Promulgated under such act, or the name of one or more persons Subject to section 3 of the said act with respect to such wool product. CONCLUSION The aforesaid acts, practices and methods of respondents, as herein found, are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and constitute Unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trada Commission Act and the ool 'V Products Labeling Act of 1939.

G60637--44----44 Order S7F.T.O.

ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST This proceeding having been heard by the Federal Trade Commission upon the compl.aint of the Commission and the answer of respondents, in which answer respondents admit all the material allegations of fact set forth in said complaint and state that they waive all intervening procedure and further hearing as to said facts, and the Commission having made its findings as to the facts and its conclusion that said respondents have violated the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the provisions of the ·wool Products Labeling Act of 1939:

It is ordered, That the respondents, Gabriel H. Gladstone and Newton A. Gladstone, copartners, trading and doing business as Gladstone Bros., and as Aaron Leonard· Co., jointly or severally, or trading under any other name, their representatives, agents, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale, and distribution of articles of clothing in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Usil).g the word I'Valcuna" to designate, de~cribe, or refer to any garment not composed entirely of vicuna wool; or representing through the use of a pictorial likeness of a vicuna, or in any other manner, directly or indirectly, that any garment containing fibers other than · vicuna wool is made entirely of vicuna wool. · 2. Representing in any manner, directly or indirectly, that any garment containing fibers other than wool is composed entirely of wool. It is further ordered, That respondents, Gabriel H. Gladstone and Newton A. Gladstone, copartners, trading as Gladstone Bros., or as Aaron Leonard Co., or trading under any other name, jointly or se"V· erally, their representatives, agents, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction or manufacture for introduction into commerce, or the sale, transportation, or distribution in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the aforesaid acts, do forthwith cease and desist frcm misbranding men's and boys' clothing or other "wool products'' as defined in and subject to the \Vool Products Labeling Act of 1939, which contain, purport to contain, or in any way are represented as containing "wool," "reprocessed wool," or "reused wool," as those terms are defined in said act, by failing to securely affix to or place on such products a stamp, ·tag, label, or other means of identification showing in a clear and conspicuous manner:

(a) The percentage of the total fiber weight of such wool product, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5 percent of said total fiber GLADSTONE BROTH~RS, ETC. 651 645 Order weight, of (1) wool, (2) reprocessed wool, (3) reused wool, (4) each fiber other than wool where said percentage by weight of such fiber is 5 percent or more, and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers. (b)· The maximum percentage of the total weight of such wool product of any nonfibrous loading, filling, or adulterating matter. · (c) The name of the manufacturer of such wool product; or the manufacturer's. registered identification number and the name of a seller of such wool product; or the name of one or more persons introducing such wool product into commerce, or engaged in the sale, transportation, or distribution thereof in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

Provrided, That the foregoing provisions concerning misbranding E>hall not be construed to prohibit acts permitted by paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 3 of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939: And provided further, That nothing contained in this order shall be construed as limiting any applicable provisions of said act or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

It is further ordered, That the respondents shall, within 60 days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order. ' . .· Syllabus' 37F.T. C.