Baxter Woolen Company, Inc., et al.

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

I N THE :MA TTER OF B~~TER 1VOOLEN COl\fPANY, INC., ET AI..

CONSENT order: ETC.: IN REGARD TO 'l'1-IE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE CO1\Ll\IISSION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 7375. Complaint, Jan. 1959-Decision, Sept. 29, 1960 Consent order requiring a manufacturer in East Rochester, N. , to cease violating the Wool Products Labeling Act by labeling as "85% wool-15% , Complaint 57 F.

nylon 70% ""001-20% nylon~ 10% rayon decoration, etc., woolen fabrics which contained substantially less woolen fibers than thus set forth, and by failing to label other wool products as required. COl\lplaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Tracie Commission Act and the ,Yool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission Baxter ,Yoolen Company, Inc., a cor-having re.ason to believe that poration, and Charles B. Baxter, indiyidunlly and as an officer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, hate violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the ,Yool Products Labeling . , and it appearit in respect thereofing to the Commission that a proceeding by \yould be. in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follo\vs:

~ is a PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent. Baxter ,Yoolen Company. Ille. corporation organized, existing and (loinp: business under' and h? -virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Jln~sachusetts. Indi,-irlis pre~i(lent-trea~11rel' of the ~or- ual respondent. Charles B. Ibxter pm' ate respondent. lie Jormulntes, directs and controls the nets poJicips and practices of the corporate respondent, including the, acts :1nd practices hereinafter referred to. An respo1Hlpllts hnyc- their oflice and principal pInee of business located at East nochester~ Y.1-I. eiIectiye. (late of the ,Yool Proc1nd5 \n. 2. Snbseqllent to the Labeling Act of 1939, and more especially since 195C;, respondents have manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced into commerce, sold, transporteel distributed, delivered for shipment ancl defined in said Act offered for sale in commerce, as " commerce': is \yool products as "wool product." is defined therein. \Y('rc misbranded by the P.-m. 3. Certain of said wool products respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a) (1) the "\Yool Products Labeling Act. and the Rules and Re~11ations promulgated thereunder in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or tagged with respect to the character and amount of the. misbranded wool const.itllent fibers contained therein. Among such respondents as "85% products were fabries labeled 01' tagged by 001-15% nylon, "70% \\'001- 2090 nylon-10yo rayon decoration:" , in and 80~iJ wool-200/0 nylon, exclusive oi~ d('cor.ation " whereas Jess ',oolen truth and in fact, said products contained substantially fibers than set forth on the labels or tags. misbranded P .o\n. 4. Certain of said wool products "'ere fnrt.her not stamped, tagged or labeled by respondents in that they were , .

BAXTER WOOLEN COMPANY, INC., ET AL. 791 ';89 Decision as required under the provisions of Section 4 (.a) (2) of the 'V 001 Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form as prescribed by the R.ules and R.egnlations promulgated thereunder. PAR. 5. In the course and conduct of their business respondents were., and are, in substantial competition, in commerce, with corporations, firms and individuals likeyrise engaged in the sale of woolen fabrics. PAn. 6. The acts and practices of the respondents as above set forth were, and are, in violation of the 'V 001 Products Labeling Act. and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, and now constitute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, in comme.rce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. P;\l~. 7. In the course and conduct of their business respondents have made certain statements with respect to the fibers of which their "'001 products \\"ere. composed on invoices covering the shipment. of said fabrics of which the following are typical: "85% wool 15% nylon 70% ,yool-20% nylon-10% rayon decoration, and 80% wool-20% nylon, exclusively of decoration " whereas, in truth and in fact, said fabrics contained substantially less woolen fibers than set forth on said invoices.

PAn. 8. The nets and praebces of the respondents set forth in paragraph 7 hereof hate had, and now ha," , the tendency and eapacity to mislead and deceive the purchasers of their said products as to the true fiber content thereof and to misbrand products manufactured by them in which respondents' fabries are used. PAR. 9. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth above in paragraph 7 were all to the pre.jnc1ice and injury of the public and of respondents' competitors and constituted and now constitute, unfair Rnd c1eeeptive .Rets and practices and unfair methods of competition within the intent and me.aning of the Federal Trade Commission Aet.

Afr. DeTV'l:tt T. Pu,c1cett for the Commission. l11r. Richard F. Cooper of R.ochester, N.I-I., for respondents. INITIAL DECISION BY ABNER E. LIPSC03IB, I-IEARIXG EXAMINER The compla.int herein was issued on J Rnuary 23 , 1959, charging respondents with misbranding certain of their wool products, and with misstating the percentage of woolen fibers contained in certain of their woolen fabrics, in violation of the 'Vool Products Labeling Act . of 1939 and the R.ules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Decision 57 F.

Thereafter, on June 27, 1960, respondents, their counsel, and counsel supporting the complaint herein entered into an Agreement Containing Consent Order To Cease And Desist, which was approved by the Director, the Acting Associate Director, and the Acting Assistant Director of the Commission s Bureau of Litigation, and thereafter, on August 16, 1960, submitted to the hearing examiner for consideration.

The agreement identifies Respondent Baxter 'Voolen Company, Inc., as a 11assachusetts corporation, with its office and principal place of business located in East Rochester, N. , and individual Respondent Charles E. Baxter (erroneously named in the complaint as Charles B. Baxter) as president and treasurer of the corporate respondent, his address being the same as that of the corporate respondent.

Respondents admit all the jurisdictional facts alleged in the comfindings ofplaint, and agree that the record may be taken as if jurisdictional facts had been duJy made in accordance ~ith such allegations.

violations of law The agreement contains a statement that the charged in the complaint. were confined to the years 1956 and 1957. Respondents waive any further procedure before the hearing examiner and the Commission; the making of findings of fact and conclusions of law; and all of the rights they may have to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accorda-nce with the agreement. 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 complaint and the agreement; that the order to cease and desist, as contained in the agreement, when it shall have become a part of the decision of the Commission, shall have the same force and effect. as if entered after a aside in the man-full hearing, and may be altered, modified or set ner provided for other orders; that the complaint herein may be used in construing the terms of said order; 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 thecomplaint.After consideration of the- allegations of the compla-int and the provisions of the agreement and the proposed orde.r, the hearing examiner is of the opinion that such order constitutes a satisfactory disposition of this proceeding. Accordingly, in consonance with the hearing e-xanliner accepts the terms of the aforesaid agreement, the Agreement Containing Consent Order to Cease and Desist, finds that the Commission has jurisdiction over the respondents and over BAXTER WOOLEN COMPANY, INC. , ET AL. 793 789 Decision their acts and practices as alleged in the complaint; and finds that this proceeding is in the public interest. Therefore It is o'/'dered That respondents, Baxter "'\Voolen Company, Inc. a corporation, and its officers, and Charles E. Baxter, individually and as an officer of said corporation, 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 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 1939, of fabrics or other "wool products" as such products are defined in and subject to the vV 001 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 included therein;

2. Failing to affix labels to such products showing each element of information required to be disclosed by S 4 (a) (2) of the "'\V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939.

1 t is f'ttrther OJ'dered, That respondents, Baxter "'\V oolen Company, Inc. , a corporation, and its officers, and Charles E. Baxter individually and as an officer of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of fabrics or any other product in commerce, as commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from misrepresenting the constituent fibers of ",which their products are compose. , or the percentages or amounts thereof, on invoices, shipping memoranda or in any other manner.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND onder TO FILE REPORT OF CO)fPLIANCE s Rules of Practice Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission 29th daythe initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the of September 1960 become the decision of the Commission; a. accordingly:

, a 1 t is olYle'/'ed That respondents Baxter \Voolen Compa,ny, Inc. COl' porn tion, and Charles E. Baxter, individually and as an officer of said corporation, shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon the.m 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. Complaint 57 F.