Harry Miller et al. trading as Milson Sales & Commission Company

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

IN THE MATTER OF HARRY lVfILLER ET AL. TRADING AS MILSON SALES & CO~a1ISSION COMPANY CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE CO~Il\IISSIO:N ACT AND OF THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACT Docket 6304. Co-Jnplaint, Mm" 2, 1955-Decision, July 1, 1955 'Consent order requiring manufacturers with office in New York City to cease violating the Wool Products Labeling Act by labeling interlining fabrics falsely as containing "100% reused wool" 100% reprocessed wool" , or 80% reused wool" and "20% other fibers, or by. failing to label them as required.

Before Mr, John Lewis hearing examiner. M?' . Roslyn D. Y Ollng, Jr. for the Commission. Hau.sm,an Forscher T1Yl/ub of New York City, for respondents. COJ.IPLAINT Pul' suant to the provisions or the Federal Trade Commission Act and the vV 001 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 Harry 1t1iller, Samuel Miller, Edwin Allen ~~Iiller and Irwin C. NIiller, as individuals and copartners trading as l\1ilson Sales &, Commission Company, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts, and the rules and regulations promulgated under the vV 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939, 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: P AR_\GRAPH 1. Respondents, Harry l\1iller, Samuel l\1iller, Edwin Allen Nliller and Irwin C. Miller, as individuals and copartners, are trading as Milson Sales & Commission Company, with their principal office and place of business located at 255 "'Vest 36th Street, New York New York.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the e:ffec~ive date of the vV 001 Products Labeling Art of 1939, and more specifically since January 1953 Decision 52 F. T. C.

respondents have manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced in commerce, sold, transported, distributed, delivered for shipment and offered for sale in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in said Act, wool products, as "wool products" are defined therein. PAR. 3. Certain of said wool products were -il1isbranded ~within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a) (1) of said "\Vool Products Labeling Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or tagged with respect to the character and the amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. Among respondents' wool products aforementioned were certain interlining fabrics labeled or tagged by respondents as containing "100% reused wooF; "100% reprocessed wool" ; or as 80% reused wool, 20% other fibers; ,)hen in truth and in fact said interlining fabrics did not contain 100% reused wool; 100% reprocessed wool; or 80% reused wool, 20% other fibers as defined by the vV 001 Products Labeling Act of 1930 and the rules and regulations promulgated therelmcler, PAR, 4. Certain of said wool products described ;lS interlining fabrics were misbranded in that they \\~ere not stamped, tagged or labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4 (a) (2) of said ,V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and in the manner and form prescribed by the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. PAR. 5. The acts and practices of the respondents as hereinabove alleged were in violation of the "'V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1930 and of 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. INITIAL DECISION BY JOHN LEWIS ~ HE~\IUXG EXAl\IINER The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents on :March 2 , 19:55, charging them with having violated the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and the Federal Trade Comn:cissioll Act~ through the misbranding of Cerbl11\ wool products. After being duly served with said complaint, the l'Bspondents appeared by counsel and entered into a stipula tion \\-ith counsel ~supporting the complaint, providing for the entry of a consent order disposing or all the issues in this proceeding. Said stipulation has been submitted to the above-named hearing examiner~ heretofore duly designated by the Comll1ission~ for his consideration in accordance with Rule V of the Conllnission s Rules of Practice. Respondents, pursuant to the aforesaid stipulation, have admitted. all the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and agreed that MILSON SALES & COMMISSION CO.

Order 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 berore the hearing examiner or the Commission, and all further and other procechlre 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 foree and effect as if made after a full hearing, and specifically waive ftuy 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 eonstruing the terms of the order provided for in said stipulation, and that the signing of said stipulation is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint.

This proceeding having now come on for final consideration by the hearing examiner on the complaint and the aforesaid stipulation for consent order, dated :May 9, 1955, 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 prjncipal place of business located at 255 west 36th Street, New York, New York. 2. 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 vVool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Federal Trade Commission Act, and this proceeding is in the interest of the public. ORDER It i.rs ordered That the respondents, Harry Miller, Samuel 1t1il1er Edwin Allen Miller and Irwin C. :Miller, individually and as copartners, trading as Milson Sales &0 Commission Company, 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 commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, of inte.rlining fabrics or other wool products" as such products are defined in and subject to the Wool FEDERAL TRADE COl\IMISSION DECISIONS Order 52 F, T. C, 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 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 percentul1l of said total fiber weight, of (1) wool, (2) reprocessed wool, (3) reused wool, (4) such fiber other than wool where said percentage by weight of such fiber is five percentull1 or more, and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers;

(b) 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, transportation, distribution or delivery for shipment thereof in commerce as "commerce" is defined in the "\V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939.

P?' ovided That the foregoing provisions concerning misbranding shall not be construed to prohibit acts permitted by paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 3 of the "\V 001 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.

DECISION OF THE COl\Il\HSSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Sec. 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 1st day of July, 1955, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly: It is ordered That the respondents herein shah within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting rorth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist. ,. . .

umVERSAL WOOL BATTING CORP. .ET AL.

Complaint