Paris Neckwear Company, Inc.

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

IN THE J\1:NITER OF PARIS NECKWEAR COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

ORDER ETC., IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRDE C01\DUSSION AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PROD"GCTS IDEXTIFICATION ACTS Docket 83.95. Comphlint !a1". 9G1-Decision, Mar. li;, 1962 Order requiring associated manufacturers in New York City to cease violating the Textie Fiber Products Identification Act by such practices as failng to label as to ilber content some 17 000 dozen handkerchiefs which they ship!:Jd from their 111fce of business in Walnut Port, Pa., to a j\ ew York 11D- G03-64- 532 FEDERAL TRADE. COMMISSION DECISIOXS Complaint CO 1'. 1'.

City conccrll under a barter or exchange arrangement, and representing falsely on invoices that the handkerchiefs were labeled as required by the Act.

COI\PLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that Paris Neck"ear Company, Inc. t corporation, P 1ri8 Handkerchief Company, Inc., a corporation, and Harry Markson, Herbert Siegel ,md Ted :\larkson, individually and as offcers of the said corporations, hereina,after referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Hules and n.egulations under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and it appearing to the COlllll11ssion that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues it.s complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows :

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondents Paris Keckwear Company, Inc., and Paris I-Iandkerchief Company, Inc., are corporations organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the hws of the State of K ew York. Individual respondents Harry Markson, Herbert Siegel and Ted :Markson are president, treasurer and secretary, respectively, of the corporate respondents. Said individual respondents cooperate in formulating, directing and controlling the acts, policies and practices of the corporate respondents including the acts and practices hereinafter referred to. All respondents have their offce and principal place of business at 1220 Broadway, ew York, N. PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Textile Fiber Prodacts Identification Act on .YIarch 3, 1960, respondents, except Paris I-Iandkerchief Company, Inc., have been and are now engaged in the introduction, manufacture for introduction, and all respondents have been engaged in the sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation or causing to be transported, in commerce, and in the importation into the united States, of textile fiber products; and have sold, oiIered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, textile fiber products, which have been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; and have sold offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transporteel, after shipment in commerce, text.ile fiber products, eithor in their original state or which were made of other textile products so shipped in commerce: as the terms "commerce" and " textile fiber products" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. PARIS NE,CKWEAR CO. , I:\C. , ET AL. 533 531 Initial Decision PAR. 3. Certain of said textilc fiber products, to wit: handkerchiefs were misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped tagged or JabeJed with the information required under Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and in the manner and form as prescribed by the rules and regulations promulgated under such Act.

PAR. 4. The respondent Paris Handkerchief Co. , Inc., has furnished false guaranties t.hat their textile fiber products ,were not misbranded in violation of Section 10 of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

PAR. 5. The respondents, in the course and conduct of their business as aforesaid, "ere and are in substantial competition with other corporations, firms, and individuals likewise engaged in the manufacture and sale of textile fiber products including handkerchiefs in commerce.

PAR. 6. The acts and practices of respondents, as set rorth here were in violation of thc Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and he Rules and R.egulations thereunder, and constituted, and now constitute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices and un rail' methods or competition, in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

lir. De Witt T. Puckett for the Commission. Otterbourq, Steindler, Houston cO Rosen of New York Mr. Donald L. K reindler for the respondents. lXITIAL DECISIOl\T BY ,VILLIA1I L. PACK) HEARING EXAl\IINER 1. The complaint in this matter charges the respondents with violation of the TcxtiJe Fiber Products Identification Act and the Hules and RcguJations promulgated thereunder and the Federal Trade Commission Act, in connection with the sale or handkerchiefs. At a hear ing held on N O\ member 15, 1961, respondents' counsel moved for leave to withdmw thc answer theretofore filed on behalf of respondents by t.their rormer counsel, :u1d such leave was granted by the hearing examiner. Thereafter, respondents' counsel admitted, with cert.ain limitations, aU of the material allegations of fact in the complaint. Proposed findings and conclusions have been submitted on behalf of an parties and the case is now before the hearing examiner ror fial consideration. Any proposed findings or conclusions not included herein have been rejected.

2. Respondents Paris Keckwear Company, Inc., and Paris Handkerchief Company, Inc., are New York corporations with their offce and principal place of business at 1220 Brmtdway, ew York Respondents Harry Markson, Herbert Siegel, and Ted Markson are Initial Decision GO F. president, treasurer, and secretary, respectively, of the corporate respondents and cooperate in formulating, directing, and controlling their policies, acts, and practices.

3. Subsequent to the effective date of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, .March 3, 1960, respondents, except Paris Handkerchief Company, Inc., have been engaged in the introduction, manufacture for introduction, and all respondents have been engaged in the sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation or causing to be transported, in commerce, and in the importation into the l:united States, of textile fiber products; and have sold, offe.rccl for sale, advertised, c1clh"crcd, transported and caused to be transported, textile fiber products, ""which have been advertised or offered for sale in conunerce; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised de.livere.d, transport.ed and caused to be transported, alter shipment in c.OHnnerce, text.ile fiber products, either in their original state or which were made of other textile products so shipped in commerce; fls the terms "commerce" and "textile fiber products" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

4. In tho course and conduct of their business respondents are in substantial competition with other corporations, firms, and individuals engaged in themanufacture and sale or textile iiber products including handkerchiefs, in commerce.

5. In September and October 1960, respondents delivered to Reliable Handkerchief Co., in New York City, certain quantities of handkcrchiefs, the handkerchiefs being shipped to Hcliable from respondents place of business in ,VaJnut Port, Pa. The c1ate.s and quantities or t.he. sB\Teral shipments ",were as rollows: September 27, 19GO, 4 720 dozen; October "1, 1960 , 4 960 dozen; October 11, 1960 , 1 495 dozen; and a second shipment on October 11 , 1960, of 5 882 dozen. These shipments ,,,ere the result of a barter or exchange arrangement between respondents and Reliable Handkerchief Co. under which each supplied quantities of handkerchiefs to the other. It appears to have been lU1c1erstood by the respective parties that neither would label the handkerchiefs delivered to the other, but that in each case the party receiving the handkerchiefs would affx proper labe.Js thereto before reseJJing the handkerchiefs to retailers. In any event, the handkerchiefs delivered by respondents to Reliable bore no labels as to fiber content, ftlthough each shipment was accompanied by an invoice to Reliable which referred to the handkerchiefs as "Cotton Handkerchiefs Respondents' position is that. t.his transaction represents an isolated unusual instance, not in the regular course of respondents' business which is the sale of handkerchiefs to retailers; that while the trans- PARIS NECKWEAR CO. , INC. , ET AL. 535 531 Initial Decision action may constitute a technical violation, it is not within the real purpose and ;ntent of the Texhle Fiber Products Identification Act. This argument must be rejectm1. It must be remembered that we are dealing here ,,,ith a highly technical, mandatory statute which appeflrs to impose the strict requirement that all textile fiber products moving in interstate commerce must be properly labeled as to fiber content. The unusual circUlllstances here present do not, in the hearing examiner s opinion, serve to remove the case frolll the operation of the Act.

6. In invoices covering the shipments of hand1kcl'chie.fs described in paragraph 5, respondent Paris Handkerchief Company, Inc., stated: Continuing guarantee under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act filed with the Federal Trade Commission. " This statement const.ituted n representation that the handkerchiefs ,were labeled in accordance 'with the requirements of the Act. ..-s the handkerchiefs were not in fact so labeled, the statement was untrue and in, iolfltion of Section 10 of the Act.

CONCLUSION The acts of respondents, as set forth above, are in violat.ion of the Textile Fiber Products Identificat.ion Act and the Rules and Hegulations IJl.olnulgatecl thereunder, and constit.ute unfair and decepti ve acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federa.l Trade Commission Act. The proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is onlered That the respondents, Paris Neckwear Company, Inc. a corporation, and Paris Handkerchief Company, Inc., a corporation and their respective offeers, and Harry J\1a1'kson, Herbert Siegel, and Ted Jfarkson, individually and as offcers of said corporations, and respondents' representatives, agents, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, manufacture for introduction, sale, advertising ancl offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce; and in the importation into the United States of textile fiber products; and in connection with selling, offering for sale advertising, delivering, transporting, or causing to be transported textile fiber products which have beecn advertised or offered for sale in commerce; and in connection with selling, offering for sale, advertising, delivering, transporting, and causing to be transported, after shipment in COlll1erce, textile fiber products, either in their original state or which have been made of other textile fiber products shipped 536 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIO Complaint GO F.'l'.

in commerce; as the term "commerce, is defmed in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, of handkerchiefs or other " textile fiber products" as such products are defined in lend subject to the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: Misbranding textile fiber products by failing to affix labels to such products showing each elmnent of information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. J t is further ordered That respondent Paris Hankerchief Company, Inc., a corporation, and its omcers, and its representatives, agents and employees as set forth in the preceding paragraph, do forthwith cease and desist from:

Furnishing false guaranties that textile fiber products arc not misbranded under the provisions of the Textile Fiber Products Identification only Act.

DECISION OF THE COl\LlIISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 4. 19 of the Commission s Rules of Practice effective Tuly 21 , 1961, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 14th day of March 1062, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly:

J t is ordered That respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon thenl or this order, file ,with the Conunission a report in writing setting rorth in detail the manner and form in which they