Joseph Grais

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

IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH GRAIS ET AL. TRADING AS RUBIN GRAIS & SONS GONSEN'!' OIliER , ETC. , IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATIOl'"' OF THE FEDERAL TRiDE co nnSSION AND THE 'VOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 6.488. Compla.int, Jan. 1956 Decision, JIa.y, 1956 Consent order requiring five copartners to cease violating the Wool Products Labeling Act through tagging boys' jad ets falsely with respect to the rharacter and amount of constitnent fibers contained in the fabrics composing them, and through failng to label wool products as required. Before 1111'. Earl J. Kolb hearing examiner. 3fT. Floyd O. Oollins for the Commission. Brown: Fox BZu,1nbeJ' of Chieago, n1., for respondents. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the 'Wool Products Labcling Act of 19;19 ,md by virtue of thc Authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that Joseph Grais, Edward Gntis, Benjamin Grais, Rubin Orais and LyDian BrauIl, individlmlly and as copartners, t.trading and doing business as Hubin Orais & Sons, hereinafter referred to as respondents have violated 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 follo\Vs:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondents .Joseph Grais, Edvlarc1 Grais, Benjamin Orais, Rubin Orais a,nd Lyllian Brann are individuals and co-partners t.trading and doing business under the firm name of Rubin Grais & Sons ,,-ith their offce and principal place of business located at 325 South \Vacl\:er Drive, Chic.ago, Illinois. These individual respondents fonnulate, direct and cont.rol the acts, practices and policies of the said business.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective ditte of the 'Vool Products Labeling Act and more espeeialJy since.e J an nary, 1052, respondents have manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced, sold tra.nsported and dist.ribut.ed delivered for shipment and offered for sale in commerce as "commerce" is defined in the VY 001 Products Labeling- Act, wool products, as "wool products" are defined therein. RUBIX GRAIS & SONS 1203 1202 Decision PAR. 3. Certain of said wool products we.re misbranded within the intent and meaning of the \V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939, and the Rules and R,egulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively hlbcled or tagged with respect to the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. Among such misbranded wool products were boys' jackets labeled or tagged by respondents as "Shell 100% woor' ,,,whereas in truth and in fact a substantia.l quantity of said jackets were made out of fabrics composed of 100% reprocessed wool, :lld a substantial number of said jackets were manufactured out of fabrics containing 35% wool and 65% reused wool.

PAR. 4. Certain of said wool products were misbranded in that they were not stamped, tagged or labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4 (a) (2) of said "Tool 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 respondents as herein alleged were and are in violation of the \Vool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and of the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

INITIAL DECISIQX BY EARL J. ROLE, HEARING EXA.MINEH The complaint in this proceeding issued January 11 , 1956, charged the respondents Joseph Grnis, Echvnrd Gntis, Benjamin Grais, Rubin Grnis, and Lyllian Braun, individually and as co-partners trading as Hubin Grais & Soils located at :325 South \Vacker Drive, Chicago Illinois, with the use of unfair and deceptive ads and practices and unfair methods of competition in interstate commerce in violation of the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the \Vool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and the Rules and Hegnlations made pursuant thereto, by misbranding certain wool products manufactured by them :for introduction into commerce.

After the issuance of said complaint and t.he filing of their answer thereto, the rcspollc1ent.s .Joseph Grais, Edward Grais, Benjamin Grais, Hl1bin Grais and Lyllian Braun, individually and :1.S copartners trading as Hubin Grais & Sons, entered into an agreement for consent order with counsel in support of the comphtint disposing of all the issues in this proceeding, which agreement was duly approved by the Director and Assist.ant Director of the Bureau of Litigation. It was expressly provided in said agreement that the signing thereof is for settlement purposes only and does not con. Order 52 F. T. C.

stitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint.

By the terms of said agreement, the said respondents admitted all the jurisdictional facts alleged in 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. By said agreement, the answer heretofore filed by respondents was withdrawn and the parties expressly waived any further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission; the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law and all thc rights they may have to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with the agreement. By said agreement, respondents further agreed that the order to cease and desist, issued in accordance with saiel agreement, shall have the same force and effect as if made after a full hearing, presentation of evidence and findings and conclusions thereon. It is further provided that said agreement, together with the complaint, shall constitute the entire record herein, that the complaint herein may be used in construing the terms of the order issued pursuant to said agreement, and that said order may be altered, modified or set aside in the mlmnel' prescribed by the statute for orders of the Commission.

The hearing examiner has considered such agreement and the order therein contained, and, it appearing that said agreement and order provides for an appropriate disposition of this proceeding, the same is hereby accepted and is ordered filed upon becoming part of the Commission s decision in accordance with Sections 3.21 and 3.25 of the Rules of Practice, and, in consonance ,with the terms of said agreement, the hearing examiner finds that the Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents named herein, and that this proceeding is in the interest of the public, and issues the following order: ORDER It is ordered That the respondents, Joseph Grais, Edward Grais Benjamin Grais, Rubin Grais and Lyllan Braun, individually and as copartners trading as Hubin Grais & Sons, or under any other name, and their representatives, agents, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device in connection with the intr04 duction or manufacture for introduction into commerce or the offering for sale, sale, transportation, or distribution in comnlerce, as commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act and the vYool Products Labeling Act of 1939, of boys' jackets or other " wool RUBIN GRAlS & SONS 1205 1202 DelJision products" as such products are defined in and subject to the '\'1001 Products Labeling Act of 1939, which products contain, purport to contain or in any way are represented to contain "wool reprocessed wool " or "reused wool" as those terms are defined in said Act, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding or mislabeling such products by:

1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, or otherwise identify such products as to the character or amount of the constituent fibers included therein;

2. Failing to securely affx 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 thc total fiber weight of such wool product exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding five percentum of said total fibcr weight, of (1) wool, (2) rcproccssed wool, (3) reused wool (4) each fiber other than wool where said percentage by weight of such fiber is five pcrcentum or more, (5) the aggregatc of all other fibers;

(b) The maximum percentage of the total weight of the wool product, of any non-fibrous loading, filling, or adulterating matter; (0) The name or registered identification number of the manufacturer of such wool product, or of Olle 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 Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

Provided that nothing contained in this order shall be construed as limiting any applicable provisions of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. DECISION OF THE COlin-fISSION AND miler TO FILE REPORT OF CO:MPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 1st day of May 1956, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly: 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 sctting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist. &:

1206 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISlO:\S Opinion 52 F. '1' , C.