Byron Clothing Mfg. Company, Inc.

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

In THE Marrer oF BYRON CLOTHING MFG. COMPANY, INC., ET AL. CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 8324. Complaint, Mar, 15, 1961—Decision, Aug. 29, 1961 Consent order requiring. manufacturers in Somerville, Mass., to cease violating the Wool Products Labeling Act by labeling as “100% wool—except decoration” and as “all wool", men's topcoats and ziplined coats which contained substantially less than 100% wool, and by failing in other respects to comply with labeling requirements.

CoMPLaAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1989, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Byron Clothing Mfg. Company, Inc., a corporation, and John S. Dasho and Aram H. Boyadjian, indi- BYRON CLOTHING MFG. CO., INC., ET AL. 349 348 Complaint vidually and as officers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations 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: ParacrarH 1. Respondent Byron Clothing Mfg. Company, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Individual respondents John S. Dasho and Aram H. Boyadjian are President and Secretary-Treasurer respectively of said corporate respondent. The individual respondents direct and control the acts, policies, and practices of the corporate respondent including the acts and practices hereinafter referred to. All respondents have their office and principal place of business at 48 Grove Street, Somerville, Massachusetts.

Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and more especially since July 1958, respondents manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced 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. 8. Certain of said wool products were misbranded within the intent and meaning of Section 4(a)(1) of the Wool Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations thereunder, in that said products were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged and labeled with respect to the character and amount of the constituent fibers therein. Among such misbranded products were men’s woolen topcoats and zip-lined coats labeled and tagged as “100% wool— except decoration” and “all wool”, whereas, in truth and in fact, said woolen garments in each instance contain substantially less than 100% wool.

Par. 4. Certain of said wool products were further misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged or labeled under the provisions of Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

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 men’s woolen topcoats and zip-lined coats.

Decision 59 F.T.C.

Par. 6. The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondents were, and are, in violation of the Wool Products Labeling 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. Mr. Harry £. Middleton, Jr., supporting the complaint. Mr. Joseph Blumsack of Somerville, Mass., for respondents. Initrat, Dectsion By John B. Pornpexter, Heartnc ExasMINER On March 15, 1961, the Federal Trade Commission issued a complaint charging that the above-named respondents had violated the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Wool Products Labeling Act by falsely and deceptively stamping, labeling, or tagging certain woolen products. After issuance and service of the complaint, the respondents, their counsel, and counsel supporting the complaint entered into an agreement for a consent order. The agreement has been approved by the 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: Respondents 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 full hearing and the said agreement shall not become a part of the official record of the proceeding unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission; the record herein shall consist solely of the complaint and the agreement; respondents waive the requirement that the decision must contain a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; 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 undersigned hearing examiner having considered the agreement and proposed order, hereby accepts such agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and issues the following order: BYRON CLOTHING MFG. CO., INC., ET AL. 351 348 Decision JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS 1. Respondent Byron Clothing Mfg. Company, Inc., is a corporation existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Massachusetts, with its office and principal place of business located at 48 Grove Street, in the City of Somerville, State of Massachusetts.

2. Respondents John S. Dasho and Aram H. Boyadjian are individuals and officers of the corporate respondent. They formulate, direct and control the acts and practices of said 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 It is ordered, That the respondents Byron Clothing Mfg. Company, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and John S. Dasho and Aram H. Boyadjian, individually and as officers 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 and distribution in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act, of wool products, as “wool products” are defined in and subject to the Wool Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding such products by:

1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling or identifying such products as to the character or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein.

2. Failing to affix labels to such products showing each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1989.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 8.21 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall on the 29th day of August 1961, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly :

Jt is ordered, That the respondents herein shall within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Com- Complaint 59 F.T.C.

mission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist.