H. Fisher

Text (OCR of the scan; may contain errors)

to the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. Among such misbranded products were girls' and misses' coats labeled or tagged by respondents as containing "35% 'Voal" and " 65% reprocessed "Wool" ; whereas, in truth and in fact said products did not consist of 35% wool and B5o/e reprocessed "wool as defined in said Act, but contained 20% wool 200/0 reprocessed wool, 56% reused wool and 4% other fibers.

PAR. 4. Certain of said wool products described as girls' or misses coats were misbranded in that they were not stamped, tagged or labeled as reqnirecl uncleI' the provisions of Section 4 (a) (2) of said W' 001 Products Labeling Act of J 939, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

PAR. 5. Certain of said wool products described as girls' or misses coats were further misbrancled by respondents within the intent and meaning of the "Wool Products Labeling Act in that the fiher content of interlinings contained in said coats werc not separately set forth on labels or tags attached thereto as required hy nule 24 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

PAR. 6. The acts and practices of the respondents as hereinabove alleged were in violation of the IV 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and of the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constitut.e unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECiSION OF THE COl\MISSIOK

Pursuant to Sec. 3.21 of the Commission's RuJcs of Pra,ctice, and as set:forth in the Commission's "Decision of the Commission and Order to File Heport of Compliance, dated June 25, 1955, the initial decision in the instant. matter of hearing examiner John Lewis, as set out as follows became on that date the decision of the Commission.

IXITIAL DECISIOX BY JOHX LE'VIS 1 HEARIXG EXA).:INEH

The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents on March 22, 1955, charging them with having violated the "I 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and the Federal Trade Commission Act, through the misbranding of certain wool products. After being duly served with said complaint, the respondents appeared and filed their answer thereto. Thereafter they entered into a stipulation with counsel supporting the complaint, providing for the withdrawal of said answer and for the entry of a consent order disposing of all the issues in this proceeding. Said stipulation has been submitted to the above-named hearing examiner, heretofore ‘duly designated by the Commission, for his consideration in accordance with Rule V of the Commission’s Rules of Practice. Respondents, pursuant to the aforesaid stipulation, have admitted all the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and agreed that the record herein may be taken as if the Commission had made findings of jurisdictional facts in accordance with such allegations. Said stipulation further provides that all parties expressly waive a hearing before the hearing examiner or the Commission, and all further and other procedure to which the respondents may be entitled under the Federal Trade Commission Act or the Rules of Practice of the Commission. Respondents have also agreed that the order to cease and desist issued in accordance with said stipulation shall have the same force and effect as if made after a full hearing, and specifically waive any and all right, power, or privilege to challenge or contest the validity of said order. It has been further stipulated and agreed that the complaint herein may be used in construing the terms of the order provided for in said stipulation.

This proceeding having now come on for final consideration by the hearing examiner on the complaint and the aforesaid stipulation for consent order, dated April 26, 1955, the answer previously filed by respondents being hereby deemed withdrawn, 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 makes the following findings, for jurisdictional purposes and order: 1, Respondents are now and have been at all times mentioned in the complaint herein, a partnership, with their office and principal place of business located at 147 North 10th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

9. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents hereinabove named. The complaint states a cause of action against said respondents under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Federal Trade Commission Act, and this proceeding is in the interest of the public.

ORDER

It is ordered, That the respondents, Henry R. Fisher and Isadore Fisher, individually and as copartners, trading as H. Fisher, or under any other name, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction or manufacture for introduction into commerce, or offering for sale, sale, transportation or distribution in commerce, as “commer ce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1989, of girls’ or misses’ coats 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 i in said Act, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding such products by:

1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling or otherwise identifying such products as to the character or amount of the constituent fibers included 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 products, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding five percentum of said total fiber weight, of (1) wool, (2) reprocessed wool, (8) reused wool, (4) such fiber other than wool where said per centage by weight of ‘such fiber is five percentum or more, and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers;

(6) The maximum percentage of the total weight of such wool products, of any non-fibrous 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, tr ansportation, distribution or delivery for shipment thereof in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939,

3. Failing to separately set forth on the required stamp, tag, label or other means of identification the character and amount of the constituent fibers appearing in the interlinings of such wool products as provided by Rule 24 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

Provided, That the foregoing provisions concerning misbranding shall not be construed to prohibit acts permitted by paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 8 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.

ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE

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 June 25, 1955J.

Complaint