Martin Berdy

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

IN THE JVIATTER OF ~IARTIN BERDY ORDER, ETC., IN REGAP..D TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COl\Il\IISSION AND TI-IE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 6950. Complaint, Nov. 20, 195" Decision, 1J1ay 30, 1958 Order requiring an individual in New York City to cease violating the Wool Products Labeling Act by tagging as "wool " interlining materials which contained substantial amounts of nonwoolen fibers, and failing to label such products as required by the Act.

llfr. Daniel T. OO'Ltghlin for the Commission. No appearances for respondent.

INITIAL DECISION BY LOREN I-I. LAUGHLIN, hearing EXAl\finer This proceeding involves charges that respondent :Martin Berdy, an individual, has violated the Federal Trade Commission Act and the ",V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939, together with the rules and regulations promulgated lUlder said latter act, by falsely and deceptively stamping, tagging, and labeling certain wool products with respect to the character and amount of the constituent fibers therein; by misbranding such products; and by otherwise misrepresenting such products as 100 percent wool or 100 percent reprocessed wool. The complaint was filed November 20 1957, and was lawfully served thereafter upon respondent who failed to answer said complaint or otherwise appear herein.

Upon proper order served upon said respondent, initial hearing was held in New York, N. , whereat Commission counsel appeftrec1 but respondent did not appeftr. The respondent's default of answer was taken andand of other appearance prior to or at the hearing entered of record by the hearing examiner. Commission s counsel presented evidence in pupport of his case-in-chief and rested. Such evidence, in substance, consisted of statements and exhibits, the latter including affidavits, certificates, and other documentary evidence as well as certain physical exhibits identified as samples correctly taken from the 'wool products so misrepresented, niislabeled and sold in commerce. The record contains evidence that the respondent, after being fully advised that his products and transmission and sale thereof in commerce were violative of the acts herein involved, nevertheless knowingly and willfully proceeded to sell considerable quanti- Decision 54 F.

ties of said products in commerce on the basis stated to a representative of the Commission by him, in substance, that. he neede(l the money. The hearing examiner thereupon dosed the proceeding for the taking of evidence and requested Commission s counsel to submit proposed findings, c.onelusion and order, which.h were duly filed Februa,ry 21, 1958.

Upon due and impartial c.consideration of the ,,-hole record, it is found that the material allegations of the complaint are each and all sustained by the. e,'idence, the hearing examiner specifically finding the facts to be as follo"' s :

Respondent is an individual sometimes trading under the name of Rodney :,Mills, Inc., and the :'Modern Rug Co. , Inc., located at 05 Rodney F,rench Boulevard, New Bedford, ~Iass. The principal pla.ce of business of the respondent is located at 470 Fourth Avenue, New York, N.

Subsequent to the eit'ectiye date of the ,Yool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and the rules and reguhtlons thereunder, respondent introduced into commerce, sold, transported, (listributec1 , delivered for shipment and offered for sale in comme.rce, as "commerce:~ is defined in said act, )yool products, as "wool products:' are defined therein. Certa.in of said wool products \were misbranded by respondent within the intent and meaning of section 4(a) (1) of the ,Yool Products Labeling Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, in that said prodllcts \were falsely and dec.eptlH'ly stamped, tagged and labeled \with ,respect. to the c.haracter and amount of the constituent fibers therein. A.among such misbranded products \'"ere \yoyen interlining materials Inbeled and tagged " \Yool ~: whereas, in truth and in fact, said material contained substantial amounts of non\yoolen fibers. The \yool products of respondent \"ere further misbranded within the intent and meaning of the ,Y 001 Prodllcts Labeling Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder, in that they \Were not stamped tagged, 01' labeled as required under-r the provisions of section 4(n.) (2) of said net.

Respondent in the eondllcL of his Imsiness is in competition, in commerce, \yit.h other individuals and \"ith firms and indiyidl1als likewise engaged in the. sale of interlin ing materials. Respondent in the, course, and eonduet of his bnsiJless~ as aforesaid in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, has misrepresented the fiber-r content of certain of said \yool products, in that they have falsely and deceptively described and indentified in sales invoices and shipping memoranda applieable thereto as 100 percent ,yoor' or 100 percent reprocessed wool MARTIN BERDY 1707 1705 Order whereas, in truth and in fact, said wool products contained substantia.Ily less than 100 percent wool or 100 percent reprocessed wool. The said acts and practices of respondent have had, and now have the tendency ~nd capacity to mislead and deceive the purchasers of said wool products as to the true fiber content thereof and cause them to misbrand products manufactured by them in which said materials we,re used~ CONCLUSIONS OF LAW There being jurisdiction of the person of respondent upon the foregoing findings of fact, the hearing examiner makes the following conclusions of law:

1. The acts and practices of respondent constituted misbranding of wool products and were, and are, in violation of the vV 001 Products Labeling Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder', and constituted, and now constitute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfai,r methods of competition in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction over all of said respondent's acts and practices which have been hereinabove f01l1Hl to be false, misleading, and deceptive.

3. The public interest in the proceeding is clear, specific, and substantial.

Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the following order is hereby entered:

ORDER repre- 1 t is ordered That respondent :Martin Berdy, his agents, sentatives and mnployees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the offering for sale, sale, transportation or distribution in commerce. as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act and the ",Vool Products Labeling Act of woven interlining materials or other "wool products" as such products are defined and subject to the ",V 001 Products Labeling .Act of 1939 , which products contain purport to contain or are in any way 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;

528577--60----109 Decision 54 F.

2. Failing to securely affix to or place on each such product a stamp, tag, label or other means of identification showing in a cleal and conspicuous manner:

(a) The percentage of the total fiber weight of such product exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding five percentlIDl of said total 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 fi bel's' (b) The maximum percentage of the total weight of such wool product of any nonfibrous 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 "Toolthereof in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Products Labeling Act of 193' It is /,w,thel' ordered That respondent :J\fartin Berdy, his agents representatives, and employees, directly 01' through any corporate 01' other device, i II connection with the offering for sale, sale 01' distribution of woven interlining materials, or any other products in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from misrepresenting the constituent fibers thereof, on invoices or other shipping memoranda or in any other manner.

DECISION OF THE CO)DIlSSIOX .\XD ORDER TO FILE m~PORT OF CO:MPLTXNCE Pursuant. to seetion ;'1.21 of the. Commission s rules of practice the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, 011 the ;-30th day :May 1958, become the decision. of the Commission; and, accordingly: It is o)'(lel' That respondent :Martin Berdy, an individual, shall within sixty (60) days after service upon him of this order, file with the Commission a report in "Titing, setting forth in detail the manner fwd form in which he has complied with the order to cease and desist.

:), NORTH AMERICAN NUT CO. INC. , ET AL. . 1709 Decision