Clarence Littlefield doing business as Plymouth Woolen Mill

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

IN THE MATTER OF CLAREKCE LITTLEFIELD DOING Busmess AS PLYMOUTH WOOLEN MILL COMPLANT, FINDINGS, AXD ORDERS IN REGARD TO THE .ALLED VIOLATION OF SEC. 5 OF AX OF CONGRESS APPROVED SEPT. 26, 1914 , ANn OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED ocr. 14, 1940ACT Doc7c,et 5846. Complaint, Feb. 5, 1951-Decision, July 21, 1951 Where an individual engaged in the manufacture, for introduction into commerce, and in the distribution therein, of blnokets which were made for it by a certain corporation on a contract basis, and were wool products as defined in the \Vool Products Labeling Act- Misbranded said blankets in that, (1) labeled "100 percent wool, exclusive of ornamentation " they were not composed entirely of wool, as "wool" is defined in said act, but contained substantial amounts of "reused wool" and "reprocessed wool" ; and (2) they did not have affxed thereto tags or labels showing their constituent fibers and the percentages thereof as required by said act:

Held That such acts and practices, under the circumstances set forth, were in violation of sections 3 and 4 of the 'Wool Products Labeling Act of 1039 and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce. Before Jir. JaJnes A. P'lt'cell trial examiner. Mr. R. L. Banks, Jr. and Mr. Jesse D. Ka.h for the Commission. Mr. Skin/ey Berger of Bangor, Me., for respondent. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that Clarence Littlefield, an individual, doing business as Plymouth "\V ooJen :Mil, hereinafter referred to as respondent, ha.s violated t.he provisions of said acts and rules and regulations promulgated under tbe Wool Products Laheling Act of 1939 and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof ,,,auld be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Clarence Littlefield, is an individual doing business as Plymouth "\V oolen Mil with his offce and principal place of business located at Plymouth, Me.

PAn. 2. Subsequent to January 1 19M) respondent manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced into commerce, and dis- Decisions 48 F. T. C.

tributed in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, wool products, as "wool products" are defined therein. The said wool products consisted of blankets which were manufactured for Arluck Blanket Corp. by respondent on a contract basis.

PAR. 3. Upon the labels affxed to the said blankets appeared the following:

1\rdical blanket 100% wool exclusive of ornamentation MFR 7088 PAR. 4. The said blankets were misbranded within the intent and meaning or the said act, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled with respect to the character and amount of their constituent fibers. In truth and in fact, the said blankets were not composed entirely of wool as "wooF' is defined in said act, but contained substantial amounts or rensed wool" and "reprocessed wool " as those terms are defined in said act. The said articles were further misbranded in that the labels affxed thereto did not show the percentage of the total fiber weight thereof, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5 percent or said total fiber weight, or: "wool" "rensed wool " and "reprocessed wool as those terms are defined in said act; each fiber, other than wool constituting 5 percent or more of such total fiber weight; and the aggregate of a11 other fibers, each of which constituted less than 5 percent of such total fiber weight.

PAR. 5. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent as herein alleged 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 within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. DECISION OF TH COMMISSION . Pursuant to rule XXII of the Commission s rules of practice, and as set forth in the Commission s "Decision of the Commission and Order to File Report of Compliance " dated July 21, 1951, the initial decision in the instant matter of Trial Examiner James A. PurceJ1 as set out as follows, became on that date the decision of the Commissjon.

INITIAL DECISION BY JAMES A. PURCELL, TRIAL EXAMINER Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and by virtue of the PLYMOUTH WOOLEN MILL Findings authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission on February 5, 1951, issued and subsequently served its complaint in this proceeding upon the respondent, Clarence Littefield doing business as Plymouth Woolen Mil, charging the respondent with the use of unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce in violation of those Acts. On March 15, 1951, respondent filed his answer to said complaint denying all of the material allegations of fact set forth therein. Initial hearing for the taking of testimony and reception of evidence was set for April 6, 1951, at Bangor j\1 dne at which time respondent fied his formal motion to withdraw the original answer and to file a substitute answer. Said motion was granted by the above-named trial examiner, whereupon respondent filed his substi.. tute answer admitting all of the material allegations of fact charged in the complaint and waiving all intervening procedure and further hearing as to said facts. On April 20, 1951, the matter was formally closed for the reception of testimony and said order fixed May 16 1951 for the filing of proposed findings and conclusions. Proposed findings and conclusions, as also a proposed order to cease and desist were filed by the attorney in support of the complaint; none were submitted by respondent.

Thereafter the proceeding regularly came on for final consideration by the above-named trial examiner, theretofore duly designated by the Commission, upon said complaint and the substitute answer thereto; and said trial examiner, having duly considered the record herein, finds that this proceeding is in the interest of the public and makes the following findings as to the facts, conclusions drawn therefront, and order:

Findings AS TO THE FACTS is an individual PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent, Clarence Littlefield, doing business as Plymouth Woolen Mill, with his offce and principal place of business located at Plymouth, :yraine. PAll. 2. Subsequent to January 1, 1949, respondent manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced into commerce, and distributed in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Wool Products are definedLabeling Act of 1939, wool products, as "wool products" therein. The said wool products consisted of blankets which were manufactured for Arluck Blanket Corp. by respondent on a contract basis.

PAR. 3. l;pon the labels affxed to said blankets appeared the foIJowlng:

Medical blanket 100% wool exclusive of ornamentation MFR 7088.

\\ Order 48 F. T. C.

PAR. 4. The said blankets were misbranded within the intent and meaning of the said act, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled with respect to the character and amount of their constituent fibers, said products being labeled 100% 001 , exclusive of ornamentation whereas in truth and in fact, said blankets were not composed entirely of wool, as "wool" is defined in said act, but contained substantial amounts of "reused wool" and "reprocessed wool " as those terms are defined in sajd act. Said manufactured articles were further misbranded in Clot the labels affxed thereto did not show the percentage of the total fiher weight thereof, exclusive aT ornamentation not exceeding 5 percent of said total fiber weight, of: "wool reused wool nnd " reprocessed wool " as those terms are defined in said act j each nher, other than wool, constituting 5 percent or more of such total fiber weight; and the aggregate of all other fibers, each or which constituted less than 5 percent of such tot,,1 fiber weight. CONCLUSION The aforesaid acts and practices or respondent as herein round were and are in violation or sections 3 and 4 of the Wool Products Labeling Art of 1939 and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder nnrl constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

ORDER It is ordered That the respondent, Clarence Littlefield, an individ- 110 I doing business as the Plymouth .W ooJen Mill, his agents, representatives, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other rlevice, in connection with the introduction or manufacture for introrll1ction into commerce, or the sale, transportation or distribution of wool products in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the aforesaid acts, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding such wool prod11cts, as defined in and subject to the Vl"ool Products Laheling Art of 1939, which contain, or purport to contain, or in any way are represented as containing "wool reprocessed wool" or "reused wooP as those terms are defined in said act:

(1) By falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, Jabeling, or othprwise identifying such products;

(2) By failing to securely affx to or place on such products a stamp, tng, label, or other means of identification sho,ving in a clear and conspicnoLls manner:

PLYMOUTH WOOLEN MILL Order (a) The percentage of the total fiber weight of such wool products exclusive of ornamentation, not exceeding 5 percent of said total 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 the wool product of any nonfibrous loading, filling, or adulterating matter; (cJ The name or the registered identification number of the manufacturer of such wool product or of one or more persons engaged in introducing such wool products into commerce, or in the offering for sale, sale, transportation or distribution thereof in commerce, as commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act and in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939;

Provided That the foregoing provisions concerning misbranding shall not be construed to prohibit acts permitted by paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 3 of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939; and PTovided further That nothing contained in this order shall be construed as limiting any applicable provisions of said act or of the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE It is ordered That the respondent herein shall, within 60 days after service upon him of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting fortb in detail the manner and form in which he has complied with the order to cease and desist (as required by said declaratory decision and order of July 21, 1951). FEDERAL TRADE COYIMISSION DECISIONS Order 48 F. T. C.