Steacie Garnetting Company

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

In tue Matrer or STEACIE GARNETTING COMPANY. ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC.. IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 7618. Complaint, Oct. 22, 1959—Decision, Jan. 14, 1960 Consent order requiring manufacturers in Framingham, Mass., to cease vio- Jating the Wool Products Labeling Act by tagging as ‘100% wool,” garmets of stock containing a substantial portion of reprocessed wool, and by failing to comply with labeling requirements of the Act. Mfr. 4. D, Edelson for the Commission.

Mr. James W. Noonan of Herrich, Smith, Donald, Farley & Ketchum. of Boston, Mass., for respondents. IniriaL Deciston py Harry R. Hiyxes. Hearine Examiner The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint. against the above named respondents on October 22, 1959, charging them with having violated the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1989 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, as well as the Federal Trade Commission Act. through the misbranding of certain wool products.

An agreement has now been entered into by respondents and counsel supporting the complaint which provides, among other things. that respondents admit all the jurisdictional facts alleged STEACIE GARNETTING CO., ET AL. 739 738 Order in the complaint; that the record on which the initial decision and the decision of the Commission shall be based shall consist solely of the complaint and the agreement; that the making of findings of fact. and conclusions of law in the decision disposing of this matter is waived, together with any further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission; that the order hereinafter set forth may be entered in this proceeding without further notice to the respondents and when entered shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing, respondents specifically waiving all the rights they may have to challenge or contest the validity of the order; that the order may be altered, modified, or set aside in the manner provided for other orders; that the complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order; that the agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint; and that the agreement. shall not become a part of the official record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission.

The hearing examiner having considered the agreement and proposed order and being of the opinion that they provide an adequate basis for appropriate disposition of the proceeding, the agreement is hereby accepted, the following jurisdictional findings made, and the following order issued:

1. Respondent. Steacie Garnetting Company is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Massachusetts, with its oflice and principal place of business located at 885 Waverly Street, Framingham, Massachusetts.

The individual respondents Curtis Steacie and John B. Steacie are officers of the corporate respondent and cooperate in formulating, directing and controlling the acts. policies and practices of the corporate respondent. Said individual respondents have their office and principal place of business at the same address at the corporate respondent.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents. and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered, That respondents Steacie Garnetting Company, a corporation, and its officers, and Curtis Steacie and John B. Steacie, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents’ Decision 56 F.T.C.

representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, or manufacture for 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 Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, of “wool products,” as such products are defined in and subject to the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, 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 contained 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 product, 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 fiber 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 identification number of the manifacturer 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 Wool Products Labeling Act. of 1939.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 14th day of January, 1960. become the decision of the Commission: and, accordingly :

Tt 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. DAVID ROSEN, INC., ET AL. 741 Decision I~ the Martrer or