Smolowitz & Benkel, Inc.

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

In THE MATTER OF SMOLOWITZ & BENKEL, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-10. Complaint, Oct. 28, 1961—Decision, Oct. 28, 1961 Consent order requiring New York City manufacturers to cease violating the Wool Products Labeling Act by labeling as “50% wool, 50% reprocessed wool”, men’s and boys’ caps which contained a substantial quantity of nonwoolen fibers; failing to disclose on labels the true generic names of fibers present in such caps, and the percentage thereof; failing to disclose the fiber composition of knitted ear covers of different fiber composition from the caps themselves; and failing in other respects to comply with requirements of the Act.

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 Smolowitz & Benkel, Inc., a corporation, and Nathan Smolowitz and Samuel Small, individually 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 :

Complaint 59 F.T.C.

Psaracrary 1. Respondent Smolowitz & Benkel, Inc. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. Individual respondents Nathan Smolowitz and Samuel Small are president and secretary-treasurer, respectively, of the corporate respondent. Said individual respondents cooperate in formulating, directing and controlling 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 584 Broadway in New York, New York.

Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and more especially since 1950, respondents have 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 by the respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4(a) (1) of the Wool Products Labeling Act. and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or tagged with respect to the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained therein.

Among such misbranded wool products were men’s and boys’ caps labeled or tagged by the respondent as “50% wool, 50% reprocessed wool”, whereas in truth and in fact said products contained a substantial quantity of non-woolen fibers.

Par. 4. Certain of said wool products were further misbranded by the respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged or labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4(a)(2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. Among such misbranded wool] products, but not limited thereto, were men’s and boys’ caps with labels which failed: (1) to disclose the true generic names of the fibers present and (2) to disclose the percentage of such fibers.

Par. 5. 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 Regwlations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

(a) The required information contained on the labels or tags attached to the wool products was obscure and inconspicuous and so placed as to be unseen or unnoticed by purchasers and purchaser- SMOLOWITZ & BENKEL, INC., ET AL. 891.

889 Decision consumers, in violation of Rule 11 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

(b) Certain wool products composed of two or more sections which were recognizably distinct and of different fiber composition, were not labeled in such a manner as to disclose the fiber composition of each section thereof, in violation of Rule 23(b) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

Among such misbranded wool products were men’s and boys’ caps containing knitted ear covers of different fiber composition from the remainder of the caps which were not labeled to disclose the fiber composition of the aforesaid knitted ear covers. Par. 6. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth above were, and are, in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1989 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. DECISION AND ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission -Act and the Wool Products Labeling -\ct of 1939, and the respondents having been served with notice of said determination and with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereaiter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not. constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as set forth in the complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission’s rules; and The Commission, having considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order :

1. Respondent Smolowitz & Benkel, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its office and principal place of business located at 584 Broadway, in the city of New York, State of New York. Respondents Nathan Smolowitz and Samuel Small are officers of Order 59 F.T.C.

said corporation and their address is the same as that of said corporation.

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 Smolowitz & Benkel, Inc., a corporation, Nathan Smolowitz and Samuel Small individually and as officers of the 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, of wool products, as “commerce” and “wool products” are defined in the Woo] Products Labeling Act of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding wool 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 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 each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

3. Failing to disclose by sections and to separately set. forth on the required stamp, tag, label or other means of identification the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained in each section of such wool products as required by Rule 23(b) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the aforesaid Wool Products Labeling Act of 1989.

[tts further 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 this order. ELLIOT KNITWEAR, INC., ET AL. 893 Decision