Samuel Elias and Jack Ostrow

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

b, THE :MATTER OF SAMUEL ELIAS AND JACK OSTROW DOING BUSINESS AS MUTUAL TOGS CO.

COMPLAINT, FINDINGS , A!\"D ORDERS I REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATIO:- 010 SEC. 5 OF AX OF CONGRESS APPHOVED SEPT. 26, 1914, AND OF A ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED OCT. 14 , 1940ACT Docket 5861. Complaint Mar. 1951 Decision, Sept. 20, 1951 Where two partners engaged in the manufacture and introduction into commerce, and offer, sale, and distribution tllCrein, of wool products as defined in the Wool Products Laheling Act IIish:' andeu ladies' skirts within the intent ami meaning of said act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder in tbut, (1) contrary to the labe!H ahl:seri thereto, they were not GO percent "wool " as there defined, and they contained more than 40 percent of ra on; and, (2) the labels ilHxed thereto did not show the aggregate of all other fibers, each of which lonstituted less than 5 percent of the total fiber weight: Held 'That such acts and vractices, under the circumstances set forth, were in yiolatlon of sections 3 and 4 of the Wool Product.s Labeling- Act of 19:i9 and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce. As respects the c!large in the complaint that respondents remoyed tag's affxed to the piece goods received from the manufacturer, and substituted tags and labels which contained different information: said charge, ,,,while true, was dismissed as not propcrlJ' subject to the charge of violation of the Act under the circumstances.

Before !I r. James A. Purcell trial examiner. J,fr. Russell T. Porter for the Commission. Afr. Harold Henry, of New York City, for respondents. CO:MPLAIKT 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 Sam Elias and .J ack 03trow, inc1ividually and as copartners doing business as futual Togs Co., hereinafter rderred to as respondents, have violatcd the provisions of said acts and rules and regulations promulgated under' the ",Vool Products Labeling Act of 1039, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thcrcof ,yould be in the public interest hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as fallo',", :

213840-54- Complaint 48F. T. C. PARAGRAPH 1. The Mutual Togs Co. is a partnership. Samuel Elias and Jack Ostrow, individually and as copartners doing business as Mutual Togs Co., are in control of the operations of the said company, whose principal place of business is located at 6605 Twentieth Avenue, Brooklyn 2, N. Y.

I' AR. 2. Subsequent to May 1950, respondents manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced into commerce, offered for sale in commerce, and sold and distributed in commerce, as "commerce is defined in the 1'1001 Products Labeling Act of 1939, wool products as "wool products" are defined therein. The said wool products included ladies' skirts which were made by respondents from a fabric designated as "Parker-Wilder 1121 " purchased from Strand Woolen Co.

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

Mutual Togs Company 60% Wool 400/ Rayon Exclusive Ornamentation PAR. 4. The said skirts were misbranded within the intent and meaning of 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 skirts were not 60 percent wool as "wool" is defined in said act; the aggregate of the woolen fibers therein constituted less than 60 percent of the said skirts and they contained more than 40 percent of rayon. Said articles were further misbranded in that the labels uflixed thereto.o did not show the aggregate of all other fibers, each of which constituted less than 5 percent of the total fiber weight. PAn. 5. The person by whom the piece goods, from which said skirts were made by respondents, were manufactured for introduction into commerce affxed thereto labels and tags as required by said Act containing information with respect to its fiber content as follows: 20% Wool 30% Hepracessed \Vaal 50% Rayon.

Respondents have furt.her violated t.he provisions of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 by substituting for said tags and affxing to t.he said skirts tags and labels containing information set forth in paragraph 3 herein with respect to the content thereof which was not identical with the information with respect to such content upon the tags and labels as affxed to the wool product from which said MUTUAL TOGS CO. 321 319 Decision skirts were made by the person by whom it was manufactured for introduction into commerce.

PAR. 6. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents 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 THE C01 L\IISSIOX 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 September 20, 1951, the initial decision in the instant matter of trial examiner James A. Purcell, as set out as follows, became on that date the decision of the Commission.

IXrI'IAL DECISION BY JA: :IES A. PURCELl.., TRIA EXA:'HNER 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 on March 23, 1951, issued and subsequently served its complaint in this proceeding upon the respondents, Samuel Elias and Jack Ostrow individually and as copartners doing business as Mutual Togs Co. charging said respondents with the use of unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce in violation of those acts. On April 12 1951, respondents filed their answer to said complaint admitting all of the material allegations of fact therein set forth but alleging that the misbranding arose through inexperience in the trade and unfamili. arity with the acts cited; that since discovery of their violations as charged, respondents have taken all necessary steps to avoid future viola6ons. Also, in said answer, respondents requested the privilege of entering into a stipulation with the Commission to cease and desist from the acts complained of which request was, on Aprij 17, 1951 denied by formal order of the examiner. Proposed findings and conclusions were directed to be filed before "lay 4, 1951, pursuant to which order the attorney in support of the complaint did, on April , 1951 , me proposed findings and conclusions, but none were submitted by respondents. Thereafter, the proceeding regularly came on for final consideration by the above-named trial examiner theretofore duly designated by the Conlllission upon said complaint and respondents' answer thereto; and said trial examiner, having duly Findings 48 F. T. C. 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 therefrom, and order:

FINDINGS AS TO rhe FACTS PARAGRAPH 1. Samuel Elias and Jack Ostrow, individually, and as copartners doing business as 1\utual Togs Co., with principal place of business located at 6605 Twentieth Avenue, Brooklyn, N. are named as respondents and as such are in control of the operations of the .Mutual Togs Co.

PAn. 2. tSubsequent to the month of fay 1950, respondents manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced into - commerce offered for sale in commerce, and sold and distributed in commerce as "commerce" is defined in the 'Vaal Products Labeling Act of 1939 wool products as "wool products" are defined therein. The said wool products included ladies' skirts "hieh ,,- ere made by respondents from a fabric designated as "Parker-Wilder 1121 " purchased from the Strand ,V oolen Co.

PAR. 3. Upon the labels affed to said skirts appeared the following: Mutual Togs Company 60% Wool 400/ Ha;yon Exclusive Ornamentation PAIL 4. The said skirts were misbranded within the intent and meaning of said act, and the rules and regulations promulgnted thereunder, in that they were falsely "nd deceptively labeled with respect to the character and amount of their constituent fibers. In truth and in fact, the said skirts were not GO percent \'\001 , as "wooF is defined in said act; the aggregate of the woolen fibers t.herein constituted less than 60 percent of the said skirts and they contained more than 40 percent of rayon. Said articles were further misbranded in that the labels affxed thereto did not show the aggregate of all other fibers, each of which constituted less than 5 percent of the total fiber weight.

PAR. 5. '\Vhen the piece goods, from which said skirts were manufactured, was received by the respondents such piece goods had affxed thereto by the manufacturer thereof, labels and tags as required by said act containing information with respect. to it.s fiber conte, as follows:

20% 'Vaal 30% Reprocessed Wool 50% Rayon MU1' UAL TOGS CO. 323 319 Order RespondMts did remove the tags and labels from such piece goods and substituted therefor, attaching same to said skirts, the labels as set forth in paragraph 3 hereof, the information contained in the two described tags or Jabels being at variance, one with the other its will be seen upon comparison.

USION The aforesaid acts and practices and methods of respondents as found were and are in violation of sections 3 and 4 of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and of the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts 2nd practices in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

The charge contained in paragraph 5 of the complaint, as found to be true in these findings as to the facts (par. 5), setting forth an alleged violation by respondents in that the tags affxed to the piece goods, as received by respondents from the manufacturer thereof, were removed and in place thereof were substituted, by respondents, the tags and Jabels set forth in paragraph 3 hereof, is dismissed as not properly subject to the charge of violation of the act under the eir- ('umstances hereof.

ORDER It i8 ordered That the respondents Samuel Elias and Jack Ostrow individually, and as copartners doing business as Mutual Togs Co. their respective representatives, agents, and employpes, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the intro duction br manufacture for introduction into commerce, or the sale transportation, or distribution in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the aforesaid acts, of ladies' skirts or other wool products, as such products are defined in and subject to the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, which products 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, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding such products: 1. By falsely and deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, or otherwise identifying such products;

2. By failing to securely affx to or place on such products a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification showing in a clear and onsp1CUOUS manner:

(a) The percentage of the total fiber weight or such wool products exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5 percent of said total fiber 324 FEDERAL TRADE CQMMISSIOK DECISIONS Order 48 F. T. C.

weight, or (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 products of any nonfibrous loading, filing, or adulterating matter. (c) The name or the registered identification number of the manufacturer or such wool prod uets or or one or more persons engaged in introducing such wool products into commerce, Of in the offering for sale, sale, transportation, or distribution thereot 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 provided further That nothing contained in this order shall be construed as limiting any applicable provisions of said act of the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

The charge of substitution of tags and labels by respondents, as charged in paragraph 5 of the complaint, is dismissed, such acts not being properly chargeable as a violation of the Act under the circumstances and conditions of the instant matter. ORDER TO FI REORT OF C01-fPLINCE It is ordered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (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 the order to cease and desist (as required by said declaratory decision and order of September 20 1951). , .

PRINCESS AN GIRL COAT, INC., ET AL. 325 Complaint