Darco Wool Corporation

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

In the Marrer or DARCO WOOL CORPORATION ET AL.

COMPLAINT, SETTLEMENT, FINDINGS, AND ORDER IN REGARD TO THE AL- LEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 5 OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED SEPT. 26, 1914, AND OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED OCT. 14, 1940 Docket 6075. Complaint, Jan. 7, 1958—Decision, Apr. 14, 1953 Where a corporation and its three officers, engaged in the manufacture and interstate sale and distribution of wool products as defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act— .

(@) Misbranded certain of said products described as batts or battings in that they were not stamped, tagged, or labeled as required by said Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder; and (0) Misbranded batts or battings in that—marked, stamped, or labeled as - “100 per cent reused wool” and ‘100 per cent reprocessed wool’—they contained substantial quantities of fibers other than wool: Held, That such acts and practices, under the circumstances set forth, were in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act:and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce.

Before Mr. James A. Purcell, hearing examiner. Mr. George E, Steinmetz for the Commission. Mr. Myron Goldman, of New York City, for respondents. 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 Darco Wool Corporation, a corporation, and Max Dabek, David Racine and Jack Dabek, individually and as officers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts, 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:

ParacrarH 1. Respondent Darco Wool Corporation is a corporation, organized and existed under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its office and principal place of business at 1417 Hudson Boulevard, North Bergen, New Jersey. The individual respondents Max Dabek, David Racine and Jack Dabek are president, secretary and treasurer, respectively of respond- DARCO WOOL CORP. ET AL. 1307 1306 Consent Settlement ent corporation, and as such, maintain their place of business at the same -location as the corporate respondent; and in their respective capacities as officers thereof individually, jointly and severally formulate, direct and control, the acts, practices and policies of said corporate respondent.

Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of said Wool Products Labeling Act and more especially since June of 1951, respondents have manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced into commerce, sold, transported, distributed, delivered for shipment and offered for sale in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act, wool products, as “wool products” are defined therein.

Par. 8. Certain of said wool products described as batts or battings were misbranded in that they were not stamped, tagged or labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4 (a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939,.and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Par. 4. Certain of said wool products were misbranded within the intent and meaning of said Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively marked, stamped or labeled with respect to the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. Among the misbranded articles aforementioned were batts or battings marked, stamped or labeled by respondents as “100% reused wool” and “100% reprocessed wool” when in truth and in fact such batts or battings were not 100% reused wool and 100% reprocessed wool but contained substantial quantities of fibers other than wool.

Par. 5. The acts and practices of the respondents as herein alleged were 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. CONSENT SETTLEMENT ? Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, the Federal Trade Commission on January 7, 1953 issued and subsequently served its com- _31The Commission’s ‘‘Notice’’ announcing and promulgating the consent settlement as published herewith, follows:

The consent settlement tendered by the parties in this proceeding, a copy of which is served herewith, was accepted by the Commission on April 14, 19538, and ordered entered of record as the Commission’s findings as to the facts, conclusion, and order in disposition of this proceeding.

The time for filing report of compliance pursuant to the aforesaid order runs from the date of service hereof.

Findings 49 F.T.C.

plaint on the respondents named in the caption hereof charging them with the use of unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of the provisions of said Acts.

The respondents, desiring that this proceeding be disposed of by the consent, settlement procedure provided in Rule V of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, solely for the purposes of this proceeding, any review thereof, and the enforcement of the order. consented to, and conditioned upon the Commission's acceptance of the consent settlement hereinafter set forth, and in lieu of the answer to said complaint heretofore filed and which, wpon acceptance by the Commission of this settlement is to be withdrawn from the record, hereby: 1. Admits all the jurisdictional allegations set forth in the complaint.

2. Consents that the Commission may enter the matters hereinafter set forth as its findings as to the facts, conclusion, and order to cease and desist. It is understood that the respondents, in consenting to the Commission’s entry of said findings as to the facts, conclusion, and order to cease and desist, specifically refrains from admitting or denying that it has engaged in any of the acts or practices stated therein to be in violation of law.

3. Agrees that this consent settlement may be set aside in whole or im part under the conditions and in the manner provided in paragraph (f) of Rule V of the Commission’s Rules of Practice. The admitted jurisdictional facts, the statement of the acts and practices which the Commission had reason to believe were unlawful, the conclusion based thereon, and the order to cease and desist, all of which the respondents consent may be entered herein in final disposition of this proceeding, are as follows:

FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS Paracrarit 1. Respondent Darco Wool Corporation is a corporation, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its office and principal place of business at 1417 Hudson Boulevard, North Bergen, New Jersey. The individual respondents Max Dabek, David Racine and Jack Dabek are president, secretary and treasurer, respectively of respondent. corporation, and as such, maintain their place of business at the same location as the corporate respondent; and in their respective capacities as officers thereof individually, jointly and severally formulate, direct and control, the acts, practices and policies of said corporate respondent.

Par, 2. Subsequent to the effective date of said Wool Products Labeling Act and more especially since June of 1951, respondents DARCO WOOL CORP. ET AL. 1309:

1306 Order have manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced into. commerce, sold, transported, distributed, delivered for shipment and offered for sale in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act, wool products, as “wool products” are defined therein. .

Par. 8. Certain of said wool products described as batts or battings were nusbranded in that they were not. stamped, tagged or labeled as required under the provisions of Section + (a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations proniulgated thereunder. Par. 4. Certain of said wool products were misbranded within the intent and meaning of said Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively marked, stamped or Jabeled with respect to the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. Among the misbranded articles aforementioned were batts or battings marked, stamped or labeled by respondents as “100% reused wool” and “100% reprocessed wool” when in truth and in fact such batts or battings were not 100% reused wool and 100% reprocessed wool but contained substantial quantities of fibers other than wool. CONCLUSION The acts and practices of the respondents as herein found were 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 It is ordered, That the respondent, Darco Wool Corporation, a corporation, and. its officers, and respondents, Max Dabek, David Racine and Jack Dabek, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce or the offering for sale, sale, transportation or distribution in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, of wool batts or battings or other wool products, as such products are defined in and subject to said Act, which preducts contain, purport to contain or i any way are represented as containing “wool,” “reprocessed wool” or “reusecl wool,” as those terms are defined in said Act, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding wool products by:

260138---55 Order . : 49 F.T.C.

1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, or otherwise identifying, such products as to the character or amount of the constituent fibers therein. , 2, Failing to securely affix to or place on each such product 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 five percentum of said total weight, of (1) wool, (2) reprocessed wool, (8) 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 or the registered identification number of the manufacturer of such wool product or of one or more persons engaged in introducing such wool product into commerce or in the offering for sale, sale, or distribution thereof in commerce, as “commerce” is defined 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 or the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

It is further 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 DARCO WOOL CORP. ET AL. 1311 1806 : Order and form in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist. ;

Darco Woou Corp.

DARCO WOOL CORPORATION By Davm Racine (Name) Secretary (Title) Max Dasex Max Dabek, individually, and as an officer of Darco Wool Corporation, a corporation.

Davin Racine David Racine, individually, and as an officer of Darco Wool Corporation, a corporation.

Jack Danek Jack Dabek, individually, and as an officer of Darco Wool Corporation, a corporation.

The foregoing consent settlement is hereby accepted by the Federal ‘Trade Commission and ordered entered of record on this the 14th day of April, 1953.

Srllabus 4u Fk. T.C..

_ In THE Marrer or