H. M. Prince Textiles, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF H. M. PRINCE TEXTILES, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLA'rION OF THE FEDERA TRE COMMISSION AC'l' Docket 8026. Complaint, June 1960-Dec-ision, Mar. 4, 1961 Consent order requiring !- ew York City distributors of textile fabrics to garment manufacturers, to cease representing falselr-orally and on invoices, contracts, and confirmations tbereof-that fabrics composed wholly or in part of Iranian Cashmere were "100% Chinese Cashmere and "100% Mongolian Cashmere.

COJ\IJ LAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and by virtue of the authority vest cd it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that H. )1. Prince Textiles, Inc., a corporation, and Hugo :11. Prince and Peter Prince individually and as offcers of said corporal-ion, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have -dolatcd the provisions of said Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof ,,,ould be :in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: P ARAGHAPH 1. R.respondent II. J\I. Prince Textiles, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the la"s of the State of New York, with its principal offce and place of business located at 450 Seventh A venue, in the City of York, State 01 Ne" York.

Respondents Hugo M. Prince and Peter Prince are officers of the corporate respondent. They formulate, direct and control the acts and practices of the corporate respondent, including the acts and M. PRINCE TEXTILES , rue. , ET AL. 275 274 Complaint practices hereinafter set forth. Their address is the same as that of the corporate respondent.

PAR. 2. Respondents are now, and for some time last past have been, engaged in the advertising, offering for sale, sale and distributtion of textile fabrics to garment manufacturers. PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents no\v cause, and for some time last past have caused, their said products, when sold, to be shipped from their place of business in the State of Ne" York to purchasers thereof located in various other states of the united States and maintain, and at a11 times mentioned herein have maintained, a substantial course of trade in said products in commerce, as "comme.rce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 4. In the course and conduct of their business, and for the purpose of inducing the sale of their fabrics, respondents have made certain statemcnts with respect to the fiber content of their fabrics orany, on invoices, contracts and confirmations thereof that certain of their said fabrics "ere "100% Chinese Cashmere" and that others were "100% JHongolian Cashmere.

PAR. 5. Said statements and representations were false, misleading and deceptive. In t.ruth and in fact, said fabrics were not composed of 100% Chinese Cashmere or 100% J\Iongolian Cashmere but "ere composed, "holly or in part, of Iranian Cashmere. PAR. 6. In the course and conduct of their business, at an times mentioned herein, respondents have been in substantial competition in commerce, with corporations, firms and individuals in the sale of textile fa,brics of the same general kind and nature as that sold by respondents.

PAIL 7. The nse by respondents of the aforesaid false, misJcacling and deceptive statements, representations and practices has had, and now has, the capacity and tendency to mislead members of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said statements and representations -were and are true and into the purcha, of substantial quantities of respondents' products by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief. As a consequence thereof, substantial trade in commerce has been, and is being, unfairly diverted to respondents from their competitors and substantial injury has thereby been and is being done to competition in commerce. Paint 8. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, "ere and are aU to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents' competitors and constituted, and now 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.

276 FEDERAL TRADE COM.\lission DECISIONS Findings ;'8 J' ilr. Dewitt T. Puokett supporting the complaint. Halperin Natanson Shivitz Soholer Steingut by ilr. David I. Shivite of New York, N. Y. , for respondents. INITIAL DECISION BY JOHN B. PorXDEXTER l-IEARI G EXAMI On June 27, 1960, the Federal Trade Commission issued a complaint charging that the above-named respondents had violated the provisions of the Federal Trade COlmnission Act. The complaint alleged that respondents had misrepresented the fiber content of t their fabrics.

After issuance and service of the complaint the respondents, their attorney, and counsel supporting the complaint entered into an agreement for a consent order. The agreement has been approved by the Director, Associate Director and the Assistant Director of the Bureau of Litigation. The agreement disposes of the matters complained about.

The pertinent provisions of said agreement are as follows: Hespondcnts admit all jurisdictional facts; the complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order; the order shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a fun hearing and the said agreement shall not become a part of the offcial record of the proceeding unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission; the record herein shan consist solely of the complaint and the agreement; respondents "aive the requirement that the decision Inust contain a statement of findings of fact and conclusion of Ja,,' ; respondents waive further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission, and the order may be altered, modified, or set aside in the manner provided by statute for other orders; respondents waive any right to challenge or contest the validity of the order entered in accordance with the agreement and the signing of said 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. The unders;gned hearing examiner having considered the agreement and proposed order, hereby accepts such agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and issues the following order: JUIUSDIGTION AL DINGS 1. Respondent H. 1. Prince Textiles, Inc. is a corporation existing and doing business under and by virtue of the la"s of the State of Kew York, "ith its offce and principal place of business located at 450 Seventh Avenue, in the City of Ne" York, State of Ne" York. 2. l\espondcnts I-Iugo 11. Prince and Peter Prince are offcers SIMMONS COMPANY 277 277 Syllabus the corporate respondent. Their address is the same as that of the corporate respondent.

3. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents hereinabove named and the proceeding is in the public interest. ORDER , Inc. , a I t is ordered That respondents, H. M. Prince Texties corporation, and its offcers, and Hugo M. Prince and Peter Prince iudividually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale or sale of fabrics in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forth"ith cease and desist from represe,ntjng, in any manner that fabrics composed in whole or in part of Iranian Cashmere arc Jlongolian Cashmere or Chinese Cashmere; or misrepresenting in any manner the nature or origin of the constituent fibers of "hieh their fabrics are composed or the percentage or amounts thereof.

DECISIQX OF THE CO)1lIlSSION 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 4th day of March, 1961, 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 "ith the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in "which they have complied "ith the order to cease and desist.