Mickey W Aks, Inc.

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

in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist. IN TI-IE ),IA TTER OF MICKEY W AKS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRE COMMISSION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 8260. Complaint, Dec. 30, 1960-Decision, Mav 4, 1961 Consent order requiring manufacturers in New York City to cease violating the Wool Products Labeling Act by failng to label separately each unit of multiple-piece garments sold in combination, and by failng to attach the required tags to certain wool products.

COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool 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 Mickey Waks, Inc., a corporation, and 681-237 63-- 6110 EDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIO:LT Complaint 58 F, Mickey Waks, individually and as offcer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts "nd the Rules and RBgulations promulgated under the Wool 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:

P ARAGRAH 1. Respondent Mickey Waks, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of II ew York with its offce and place of business located at 102 West 38th Street, New York, New York.

Respondent Mickey Waks is president of the corporate respondent. He formulates, directs and controls the acts and practices of the corporate respondent. TIis address is the same as that of t.he corporate respondent.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the .W 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939, and more especially since May 1 , 1958 , respondents have manufactured for introduction into commerce, sold transported, distributed, delivered for shipment, and offered for sale in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in said Act, wool products as wool products" are defined therein.

PAR. 3. Certain of said wool products were misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged or labeled as required under the 1)1' 0\"isions of Section 'l(a) (2) of the ,Vaal Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. PAR. 4. Certain of said wool products were misbranded in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that respondents failed to attach a stamp, tag or label or other means of identification containing the information required under Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act and the Rnles and Regulations promulgated thereunder to each unit of milltiple-piece gannPllts 501(1 in combination, in vio1ution of Rule 12 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. PAR. 5. The respondents in the course and conduct of their business as aforesaid were and are in substantial competition in commerce with other corporations firms and individuals likewise engaged in the manufacture and sale of wool products, including ladies dresses and dress and jacket ensembles.

PAR. 6. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth above were, and are, in violation of the Wool Products Labeling MICKEY WAKS ET AL. 691 689 Decision Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder 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. Oharles W. O'Oonnell, Esq. supporting the complaint. Jacob Schutz, Esq. of New York, X. , for respondents. INITIAL DECISION BY LEON R. GROSS , HEARING E.xAJ\:n On December 30, 1960, the Federal Trade Commission issued a complaint against the above-named respondents, in which they were charged with violating the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Wool Products Labeling Act and thc Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder by misbranding certain of the wool products sold by them in interstate commerce. The complaint alleges that respondents falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, or labeled such products contrary to the provisions of 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regnlations promulgated under said Act. A true and correct copy of the complaint was served upon respondents and each and all of them as required by law. Thereafter respondents appeared and agreed to dispose of this proceeding without a formal hearing pursuant to the terms of an agreement dated :March 10 , 1961, containing consent order to cease and desist. The agreement was submitted to the undersigned hearing examiner on :March 16, 1961 , in accordance with :J.25 of the Commission s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings. The agreement purports to dispose of this procecding as to the respondents and each and all of them and contains the form of a consent cease and desist order which the parties have represented is dipositive of the issues involved in this proceeding. The agreement has been signed by the corporate respondent by its president, by the individual respondent individually and as an offcer of said corporation, and by counsel supporting the complaint, and has been approved by the Assistant Director, Associate Director, and Director of the Bureau of Litigation of the Federal Trade Commission. In said agreement respondents admit al1 of the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint and agree that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been made in accordance with such allegations. In the agreement the respondents waive: (a) any further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission; (b) the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law; and (c) all rights respondents may have to challenge or con- 692 FEDERAL TRADE CO:V1JIISSIO DECISIOKS :E'indings 58 j1' test the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with the agreement.

The parties further agree, in said agreement, 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 agreement shall not become a part of the offcial record unless and until it becomes a part .of the decision of the Federal Trade Commission; that the order to cease and desist entered in this proceeding by the Commission may be entered "\vit.hout further notice to the respondents, and when so entered such order will have the same force and sfteet as if entered after a fnn hea,ring. Said order may be nJtcl'ccl, modified or set aside in the manner provided for other orders. The complaint may be used in construing 1118 terms of the order.

The parties have covenanted that the said agrecment is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondents that they have violated the 1ftW a.s alleged in the complaint.

This procee,ding having now come on for finat eonsiderat.ion on the complaint and the aforcsaid agrecmcnt of :JJarch 10 , 1961 , COlltaining consent order, and it appearing that the order which approved in and by said agreement disposes of all the issues presented by the complaint as to a.ll of the parties involved, said agreement is hereby accepted and approved as complying with 883.21 and 25 of the Commission s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings. The undersigned hearing examiner, ha,ving considered the agreement and proposed order and being of the opinion that the acceptance thereof will be in the public interest, makes the following findings and issues the following order:

FIXDIKGS 1. The Federa.l Trade Commission has jurisdiction over the parbes and the subject matter of this proceeding; and this proceeding is in the public interest;

2. H,respondent l\Iickey 'Vaks Inc.: js a corporation existing and doing business under and by virtue of the la\ys of the State of York, with its offce and principal place of business Jocated at 102 West 38th Street, in the City of N cw York, Shltc of :New York. 3. Respondent :\Ieycr ,Yaks is president of the corporate respondent. He formulates directs and controls the acts and practices of the corporate respondent. His address is the same as that of the corpora.te respondent. Meyer 'Vaks is the same individual.l who was MICKEY WAKS, INC. , ET AL. 693 089 Decision incorrectly named in the original complaint as :Mickey Va.ks. The agreement has been signed by ieyer VFaks under his correct name. 4. Hesponclents are engaged in commerce as "commerce " is defined in the pertinent st.atutes ,,,which are invoked by thl complaint filed herein. , therefore It is ordered That respondents l\1ickey 'Yaks, Inc. , a corporation and its offcers, and l\Ieyer 1Vaks) individually anel as an oiIcer 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, distribution or delivery for shipment, in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Tra(k Commission Act, and the y 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 , of woolen dresses or other "wool products " as such products are defined in and subject. to said ,Vool Products Labeling Act, do fort.hwith cease and desist. from misbranding such products by:

1. Failing to aiIx labels to wool products showing each element of information required to be disclosed by g4(a) (2) of the .Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939;

2. Failing (0 affx labels to each unit of multiple-piece garments sold in combination showing each element of the information rcquired to be disclosed by g4(a) (2) of the IVool Products Labeling Act of 19:39.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FIL REPORT OF COMPLIANCE The Commission having considered the hearing examiner s inital decision, filed l\larch 21 , 1961 , acce.pting an agreement containing a consent order theretofore executed by respondents and counsel support.ing the complaint; and It appearing that the first and secona sentences in the initia.1 decision, purporting to summarize the cllarges in the complaint arc in error: and the Commission being of the opinion that this error should be corrected:

It 18 O'ylered. That the first sentence contained in the firs1 paingraph of the init.ial decision be, and it hereby 1S, Inodified to read as follows:

On December 30, 1960, the Federal Trade Commission issued a complaint against the above-named respondents, in ,vhieh they were charged with violating t.he Fc(lcral Trade Commission Act, and the ,Vool Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations prorrlulgatecl thereunder by misbranding certain of their wool products." 694 YEDEHAL TRADE CO ll\lis IOX DECISIONS Complaint 58 P.

It is further ordered, That the initial decision be, and it hereby is modified by striking from said decision the second scntence in the first paragraph thereof.

ltis further orclerec1 That ihe initial decision as so modified shall, on the 4th day of May 1061 , become the c1ecisi Oll of the Commission.

It is further ordered, That the respondcllts shall it.hin sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission tl report, in \"writing, setting forth in c1eta,il the IllilllllCI' and form in which they have comp1ietl with the onler contained in the aforesaid initial decision, a.s modified.