Bronco Mfg. Corp. and Murray and Peter Spiewak

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

IN THE )LATTER OF BRONCO )1:FG. CORP. AND MURRAY MID PETER SPIEWAK COXSEXl' OHDEn, ETC., lX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE CO DIISSIO ACT Docket 6217. Complaint, June 195-'- Decision, Oct. , 1954 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturer of heavy outerwear to cease representing falsely by its nse of color, style, markings, insignia, etc. that its enited States Armed Forces type jackets were manufactured for the 'Cnited States Armed Forces and in accordance with Armed Forces specifications.

Before J1IJ'. John Lewis hearing examiner. 1/1'. T el'ral A. J ()llan for the C0l11nission. Jh. Jules Goldstein of New York City, for respondents. CO:1IPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Bronco :l\fg. Corp. a corporation, and JIurray Spic\rak and Peter Spie\vn.k, individllal1y and as ofiicers of said corporlltion, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Ad, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its cOlnplaint, stating its charges in that respect as follmys :

PAHAGlL\pn 1. Respondent Bronco 11fg. Corp., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Yark with its offce and principal1 place of business located at 641 Sixth Avenue, Kew York, New York. Respondents Murray Spiewak and Peter Spiewak are respectively President and Secretary- Treflsurer of said corporate respondent with their offce and principal place of business located at the same address. These individuals Hcting in cooperation with each other formulate direct and control all of the policies, acts and practices of said corporation.

PAR. 2. Respondents are now, and have been for more than two years last past, engaged in the mH,nufacture, sale and distribution of heavy outerwear, including imitation Armed Services type jackets in commerce, among and between the various States of the -United , 420 FEDERAL TRADE CO DnSSJON DECISIONS Complaint 51 F. T. C. States and in the District of Columbia. Respondents maintain, and at. all times ment.ioned herein have maintained a substantial course of trade in said garments, in commerce, among and between the various States of the United States.

PAIL 3. The garments manufacturec1, sold and dist.ributed by 1' spondents in the course and conduct of their business as aforesflicl closely resemble the jackets and outer garments issnecl and flll'uished to members of the United States Armed Forces in color, pattern and style. Hesponclents also cause to be affxed to said garments certain markings, insignia, labels and tflgS which purport to designate the branch of service: model, cantrnet number, specification numbel' stock number and directions as to the manner of use in substantially the same form, kind a,n(l manner as the markings insignia, labels and 011tags prescribed and used by the United States An-ned Forces similar and like garments. Typical of the words antl terms appearing on the markings, labels and tags are: AIR PATROL Spec. #BR-641 Order O. Ql079 JACKET, B-13 ' YPE ':L'bis jacket increases greatly the ""armth of clothing WO)" under it in ('old (will temperate climates because it is 'YIKDPROOF. rse: Sweat wil ('hil you; therefore when you start to ,r.et hol open coJlal' If that is not enough-h, remote clothing worn underneath. Type 15 ':'YPE SPEC. #GG47S STOCK #TL-H)653 U. S. A.

Typical of insignia used on certain of said garments is that of the Army Air Forces, consisting of a fiye point star with two wings enclosed in a circle, under which the words "Army Ail' Forces " appeal'. PAR. 4. Through the use of said colors, patterns and styles and the markings, insignia, labels and tags, as described in Paragraph 3 hereof respondents have represented and implied and do represent and imply that said jackets and outer garments, manufactured, sold and distributed by them in commerce ",were' manufactured for the Vnit-ed States Armed Forces and in accordance with specifications of said Armed Forces.

BRONCO MFG. CORP. ET AL. 421 410 Decision PAR. 5. Said representations and implications are false, misleading and deceptive. In truth and in fact, respondents' said garments were neither manufactured for the United States Armed Forces nor in accordance with specifications of said Armed Forces. PAR. 6. By selling and distributing to wholesalers and dealers said products manufactured as aforesaid and having affxed to them the markings, insignia, tags and labels hereinabove described, respondents furnish to such wholesalers and dealers the means and instrumentalities through and by which they may mislead and deceive the purchasing public as to the origin, kind, type, and style of their said jackets and outer garments.

PAR. 7. In the course and conduct of their business respondents are in direct and substantial competition with other corporations and firms and individuals engaged in the sale in commerce of jackets and outer garments.

PAR. 8. The sale and distribution in commerce of said gaTIIlents in the color, style, design and with markings, as hereinabove alleged, has had and now has the tendency and capacity to and does mislead a substantial portion of the purchasing public into the belief that said garments were manufactured for the United States Armed Forces and in accordance with specifications aT said Armed Forces. As a result thereof, substantial trade in commerce has been unfairly diverted to respondents from their competitors a.nd substantial injury has been done to competition in commerce.

PAR. 9. The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondents, as herein alleged, are all to the prejudice and injury of thc public and of respondents' competitors and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods oT competition, in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. DECISION OF Tile CO I:rIISSIOK Pursuant to Rule XXII of the Commission s Rules of Practice and as set Torth in the Commission s "Decision of the Commission and Order to File Report of Compliance " dated October 28, 1954 the initial decision in the instant matter of hearing examiner John Lewis, as set out as fonows, became on that date the decisior of the Commssion.

INITIAL DECISION BY JOHN LEWIS, HEARlXG EXAMINER Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act the Federal Trade Commission on June 23, 1954, issued and subsequently served its compla.int upon the respondents named in the cap- Findings 51 F. T. C. tion hereof, charging them with the use of unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in connnerce in violation of the provisions of said Act. Thereafter, respondents appeared by counsel and entered into a stipulation for consent order, dated September 9, 1954. Said stipulation provides that the answer heretofJrB filed by respondents is withdrawn and expressly waives a hearing before a hearing examiner or the Commission, the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law by the hearing examiner or the Commission the filing of exceptions and oral argument before the Commission, and a11 further and other procedure before the hearing examiner or the Commission to which respondents may be entitled under the Federal Trade Commission Act or the Rules of Practice of the Commission. Respondents eonsent in said stipulation to the entry of an order to cease and desist in the form therein provided for, which shall have the same force and effect as if made after full hearing, presentation of evidence, and findings and conclusions thereon, and respondents waive any and all right, power or privilege to challenge or contest the validity of said order. Said stipulation further provides that the signing thereof is for settlement purposes only and docs not constitute an admission of violation by respondents, except that respondents admit all the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint. The said stipulation having been submitted to the above-muned hearing examiner, theretofore duly designated by the Commission for his consideration in accordance with Bule V of the Commission Rules of Practice, and it appearing that said stipulation provides for an appropriate disposition of this proceeding, the same is hereby accepted and ordered filed as part of the record herein by the hearing examiner who, after considering the complaint and said stjpulation finds that this proceeding is in the interest of the public and makes the following:

J"GRISDICTIONAL rINDINGS PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Bronco j\ifg. Corp. is a corporation organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Kew York, with its offce and principal place of business located at G4- Sixth Avenue, New York, Xcw York. Respondents l\Inrray Spiewak and Peter Spiewak are, respectively, President and Secretary-Treasurer of sa.id corporate respondent. The address of the said individual respondents is the same as that of the said corporate respondent. PAR. 2. Respondents are now, and have been for 110Te t,han one year last past, engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of heavy outer-wear garments, including various Armed Service type jackets, in commerce, among and between the various states of the United States and bl the District of Columbia. Respondents main- BRONCO MFG., CORP. El' AL. 423 419 Order tain, and at an times mentioned herein have maintained, a substantial course of trade in said garments, in commerce among and between the various states of the United States.

OHDEH 1 t is ordered that respondents Bronco )lig. Corp., a corporation and :Murray Spiewak and Peter Spiewak, individually and as offcers of said corporate respondent and responclents agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in the offering for sale, sale or distribution of wearing apparel in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, or of any other garments, do forthwith cease anad desist from representing, djrectJy or by implication, by marking, branding, labeling, tagging, or in any othet manner contrary to fact, that such merchandise was manufactured for the Armed Forces of the LTnitec1 States or in accordance with specifications of said Armed Forces. ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF CO :IPLIA It is o"demeZ 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 detall the manner and form in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist Cas required b), sa.id declaratory deeision and order of October 28, 1934J. &, &, 424 FEDERAL TRADE COJYThlISSION DECISIONS Complaint 51 F. T. C.