Ernest 0. Rich and Michael Simeone, doing. business. as Rich & Company

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

IN THE ~latter OF ERNEST 0. RICH AND MICHAEL SIMEONE, DOING . BUSINESS . AS RICH & COMPANY COMPLAINT, FINDINGs,· AND ORDER IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT APPROVED 'SEPT. 26, 1914, AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACT OF 1939, APPROVED OCT. 14, 1940 Docket 5144. Complaint, .Mar. 29, 1944-Decis·ion, June 27, i944 Where two partners engaged in the manufacture, introduction into commerce, sale, transportation and distribution of wool products, as defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, including, among others, ladies' suits and other garments; Sold such products misbranded in violation of said act and the rules and regulations . thereunder by failing to affix thereto a stamp, tag, label or other means of identification showing the percentage of the total fiber weight of wool, reprocessed wool, reused wool and non-wool fiber, and maximum percentage of adulterating matter; and proper identification of the manufacturer, seller, etc. subject to the act: Held, That said acts and practices, under the circumstances set forth, were in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce.

Mr. Dewitt T. Puckett for the Commission.

Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Ac-t of 1939, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Ernest 0. Rich and Michael Simeone, individually, and as copartners, trading and doing bu~<iness as Rich & Company, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said acts and the rules and regulations promulgated under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 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. · The i'respondents, Ernest 0. Rich and Michael Simeone, are copartners, trading and doing business as Rich & Company and have their principal office and place of business at 270 West 39th Street, New York, N.Y.

PAR. 2. Respondents are engaged in the introduction and manufacture · for introduction into commerce, and in the sale, transportation and distribution of wool products, as such products are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, in commerce, as" commerce" is defined in said Act and. in the Federal Trade Commission Act. Many of respondent's said products are composed in whole or in part of wool, reprocessed wool, or reused wool, as those terms are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939~ and such products are subject to the provisions of said Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Since July 15, 1941, respondents have violated the provisions of said act and said rules and regulations in the introduction and manufacture for introduction into commerce, and in the sale, transportation and distribution of said wool RICH & CO. 701 700 'Findings products in said commerce, by causing said wool products to be misbranded within the intent and meaning of said act and rules and regulations.

. PAR. 3. Among the wool products introduced ~nd manufactured for Introduction into commerce, and sold, transported and distributed in said commerce as aforesaid, were ladies' suits and other garments. Exemplif:ying respondents' practice of violating said act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder is their misbranding of the aforesaid prod- . ucts in violation of the provisions of sa.id act and said rules and regulations ?Y failing to affix to said products a stamp, tag, label or other means of ~dentification, or a substitute in lieu thereof, as provided by said act, show- Ing (a) the percentage of the total fiber weight of the wool product, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding five percentum: 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 five percentum 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 adulerating matter; (c) the percentages in words and figures plainly legible by weight of the wool contents of such wool Products where said wool product contains a fiber other than wool; (d) the name of the manufacturer of the wool product, or the manufacturer's registered identification number e-nd the name of a seller or reseller of the product as provided for in the rules and regulations promulgated under such act, or the name of one or more persons subject to section 3 of said act with respect to such wool products. · PAn. 4. The aforesaid acts, practices and methods of the respondents, as alleged, were and are in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of.1939 and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, 9.nd con- ~trtute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce within the rntent 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 Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, the Federal Trade Commission on the 29th day of March, 1944, issued and subsequently served its com- Paint in this proceeding upon respondents, Ernest 0. Rich and Michael Sr.meone, individually, and as copartners, trading and doing business as lhch & Company, 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 filed an answer ad- · mitting all the material allegations of fact set forth in said complaint and Waiving all intervening procedure and further hearing as to said facts. Thereafter, the proceeding regularly came on for final hearing before the Commission on the said complaint and the answer thereto, and the Com- !llission having duly considered the matter and being now fully advised rn the premises, finds that this proceeding is in the interest of the public and ~akes this its findings as to the facts and its conclusion drawn therefrom. · FINDINGS AS '1'0 Tiie FACTS PARAGRAPH 1. The respondents, Ernest 0. Rich and Michael Simeone, are copartners, trading and doing business as Rich & Company and have ..

Order 38 F. T. C.

their principal office and place of business at 270 West 39th Street, New York, N.Y.

PAR. 2. Respondents are engaged in the introduction and manufacture for introduction into commerce, and in the sale, transportation and distribution of wool products, as such products are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in said Act and in the Federal Trade Commission Act. Many of respondents' said products are composed in whole or in part of wool, reprocessed wool, or reused wool, as those terms are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and such products are subject to the provisions of said act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Since July 15, 1941, respondents have violated the provisions of said act and said· rules and regulations in the introduction and manufacture for introduction into commerce, and in the sale, transportation and distribution of said wool products in said commerce, by causing said wool products to be misbranded within the intent and meaning of said act and rules and regulations.

PAR. 3. Among the wool products introduced and manufactured for introduction into commerce, and sold, transported and distributed in said commerce as aforesaid, were ladies' suits and other garments. Exemplifying respondents' practice of violating said act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder is their misbranding of the aforesaid products in violation of the provisions of smd act and said rules and regulations by failing to affix to said products a stamp, tag, la.bel 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 the wool product, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding five percentum 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 f?.ber was five percentum 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; (c) the percentages in. words and figures plainly legible by weight of the wool contents of such wool product where said wool product contains a fiber other than wool; (d) the name of the· manufacturer of the wool product, or the manufacturer's registered identification number and the name of a seller or reseller of the product as provided for in the rules and regulations promulgated under such act, or the name of one or more persons subject to section 3 of said act with respect to such wool product. CONCLUSION The aforesaid acts, practices and methods of respondent;, as herein found, were and are in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST This proceeding having been heard by the Federal Trade Commission upon the complaint of the Commission and the answer of respondents, in which answer respondents admit all the material allegations of fact set RICH & CO. 703 700 Order 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 respondents, Ernest 0. Rich and Michael Simeone, Individually, and as copartners, trading and doing .business as Rich & Company, their representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction or manufacture for introduc.tion into commerce, or the sale, transportation, or distribution in commerce as "commerce" is defined in the aforesaid acts, do forthwith cease. and desist from misbranding ladies' ~uits or other "wool products" as such products are defined in and sub- Ject to the Wool 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 securely to affix to or place on such products a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification showing in a clear and conspicuous rnanner:

(a) The percentage of the total fiber weight of such wool product, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding five percentum 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 is five percentum 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. Provided, That the foregoing provisions concerning misbranding shall not b.e construed to prohibit acts pe~·mitted by paragraphs (a) and (b) of sechon 3 of the Wool Products Labeling A-ct 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 38F. T. C.