Cenu Fibres, LTD.

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

Ix THE MATTER OF U FIBRES, LTD., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COl\DIISSION AND THE WOOL PROD"CCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 6512. Complaint, Feb. 1956-Decision, June, 1956 Consent order requiring a manufacturer in N"e,.. York City to cease violating the Wool Products Labeling Act, through failng to attach to wool fabrics tags, labels, etc. , bearing the information required by the Act. Before Mr. .Abner E. Lipsc07nb hearing examiner. lv/r. John T. TV alkeJ' for the Commission. COJ'IPLATS'l' Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the IV 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 Cenu Fibres, Ltd., a corporation, and Philip Hausfeld, individually and as an offcer of said.corporation hereinafter referred to a,s respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Hules and Hegulations promulgated under said 'Vool Products Labeling Act, 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:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Cenu Fibres, Ltd. , is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its office and principal place of business located at 868 Sixth Avenue, New York, Kew York.

The individual respondent, Philip Hausfeld, is president of the corporate respondent, Cenu Fibres, Ltd., and formulates, directs and controls the acts, policies.s and practices of said corporate respondent. Said individual respondent has his offce and principal place of business at the same address as corporate respondent. PAR. 2. Subsequent to thc efiective date of the IV 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939, 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 said Act, ,;vool products, as "wool products are defined therein.

1522 FEDERAL TRADE COl\HdISSlON DECISIONS Decision 52 F. 'l'.

PAR. 3. Among t.he wool products introduced and manufactured for introduction into commerce, and sold, transported and distributed in said commerce as aforesaid, were fabrics. Exemplifying respondents practice of violating said Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder is their misbranding of the aforesaid products in violation of the provisions of said Act and said Rule,s and Hegulations by failing to affx to said fabrics a stamp, tag, label or other means of identification, or a substitute in lieu thereof, as provided by said Act, showing (a) the percentage of the total fiber weight of the wool product, excJuSiY8 of ornamentation 110t exceeding five percentum of said total fiber weight of (1) wool, (2) reprocessed wool, (3) 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 the \"001 product of non-fibrons loading, filling or adulterating matter; (c) the percent.ages in \"ords and figures plainly legible by weight of the wool contents of such \"001 product where said wool product contains a fiber other than wool; (d) the name of the. manufacturer of the wool product or the name of one or more persons subject to Section 3 of said Act with respect to such wool product, or the registered identification number of such person or persons as provided for in Rule 4 of the llegulations as amended. PAR. 4. Hespondents, in the course and conduct of their business were and are in competition with other corporations, firms and individuals likewise engaged in the sale of fabrics in commerce. PAR. 5. The acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged constitute misbranding of wool products and are in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Hules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and said acts and practices ate to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents' competitors and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commissi on Act.

INITIAL DECISION BY ABXER E. LIPSCO , HEARING ELUIINER On February 17 , 1956, the Fede.ral Trade. Commission issued its complaint in this proceeding, charging t.he. Respondents with unfair and deceptive acts and pra.ctices and unfair methods of competition in commerce by the misbranding of their wool products, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the "Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Bules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder. On April 27 , 1956, Respondents anel counsel supporting the complaintentereel into an Agreement Containing Consent Order To Cease CEKU FIBRES, LTD. , ET AL. 1523 lS21 Order And Desist, which was approved by the Director and Assistant Director of the Commission s Bureau of Litigation, and thereafter submitted to the I-learing Examiner for consideration. Respondent Cenu Fibres, Ltd., is identified in the agreement as a New York corporation, with its office and principal place of business located at 868 Sixth Avenue, )few York, New York, and Respondent Philip Hausfeld as the president thereof, having his offce at the same place as the corporate 1\respondent, the acts, policies and practices of which he formulates, directs and controls. Respondents admit all the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint and agree that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been duly made in accorda,nce with such allegations. Respondents, in the agreement, vmive any further procedure before the hearing Examiner and the Commission; the making of fuldings of fact or conclusions of hew; and all of the rights they may have to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance therewith. All parties agree that the record on which the initial decision and the decision of the Commission shall be based shall consist solely of the comphlint and the agreement; aud that the agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by Respondents that they have violated the Jaw as alleged in the complaint.

The agreement sets forth that the order to cease and desist as contained therein shan have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing, and may be altered, modified or set aside in the manner provided for other orders; and that the compiaint herein may be used in construing the terms of sflid order. After consideration of the charges set forth in the complaint, and the provisions of the agreement and the proposed order, the Hearing Examiner is of the opinion that such order \"i11 safeguard the public int.erest to the same extent as could be accomplished by an order issued aft.er fun hearing and an other adjudicative procedure waived in said agreement. Accordingly, in consonance with the terms of the aforesaid agreement, the I-Iearing Examiner accepts the Agreement Containing Consent Order To Cease And De,sist; finds that the Commission has jurisdiction over the Respondents and over their acts and practices as alleged in the complaint; a,nd fu1ds that. this proceeding is in the public interest. Therefore J t i8 ordered That Respondents Cenu Fibres, Ltd" a corporation and Philip Hausfeld, individually and as an offcer of said corporation and Respondents re,presentatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device" in connection with the intro. duetion or manufacture for introduction into commerce, or offering 1524 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIOKS Decision 52 F. T. C. 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 any "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 in said Act, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding such products by: 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 perccntage 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, (3) reused wool (4) each fiber other than wool where said percentage by weight of such Jiber is five percentum 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 identifieation number of the manufacturer of such wool products or of one or more persons engaged in introducing such wool product into commerce, or in the oirering 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;

PTovided That the foregoing provisions concerning misbranding shall not be eonstrued to prohibit acts permitted by paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 3 of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and Provided furthe" That nothing contained in this order shall be construed as limiting any applicable provisions of said Act or the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. DECISIQX OF TUB COl\DfISSIQX AND QImER TO FILE Rerort OF CO:\IPLIAXCE Pursuant to Section 3. 21 of the Commission Rules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing exn,miner shall, on the 16th day of !June 1956, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly: It is ordered That respondents Cenu Fibres, Ltd., a corporation and Philip Hausfeld, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, 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.

F AIRYFOOT 1525 Complaint