The Fabric Shop, Inc.

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

IN THE j\LATTER OF THE FABRIC SHOP, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FED- ERAL TRADE COl\IJ\IISSION, THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-218. Complaint, Sept. 10, 1962-Deaision, Sept. 10, 1962 Consent order requiring sellers of fabrics in Louisville, Ky., to cease violating the Textile Fiber Products Identification and the Wool Products Labeling Acts by falsely advertising textile fiber products in newspapers as "Linen 'Veave, failing to set forth the true generic names of fibers contained in products and in the proper order, using the names of fur-bearing animals for fabrics which were not fur products, and removing required labels prior Complaint 61 F.

to ultimate sale; failing to identify the manufacturer, etc., of wool products; and failing in other respects to comply with requirements of the Acts, as in the order below more specifically indicated. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and the ",V 001 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 The Fabric Shop, Inc., a corporation, and Julius Lazar and ,Verner Herz, 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 Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the ,Y 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof, Iyould be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint, stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGR..-\PH 1. Respondent The Fabric Shop, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the Common\vealth of Kentucky. Individual respondents J ulins Lazar and ,Yerner Herz are officers of corporate respondent and forratemulate, directrespondent.and control the acts, practices and policies of the corpo- Respondents are engaged in the retail sale of fabrics and have their office and principal place of business at 218 South Fourth Street Louisville, I\:y.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act on ~larch 3, 1960, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction, sale advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, and in the inlPortation into the United States, of textile fiber products; and have sold, offered 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 sa.le, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, after shipment in cmllmerce, te:s:tile fiber products, either in their original state or contained in other textile fiberproc1ucts; as the terms "comnlerce" and "textile fiber product" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

PAR. 3. Certain of said textile fiber products '\ere misbranded by respondents within the intent and meaning or Section 4 (a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regu- THE FABRIC SHOP, INC. , ET AL. 465 463 Complaint lations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, htbeled, invoiced, advertised or otherwise identified as to the name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products but not limited thereto, were fabrics which were falsely and deceptively advertised in The Courier-Journal, a newspaper published in the city of Louisville, Comn10nwealth of I\:entueky, and having a wide circulation in said State and various other States or the United States in that certain of said advertisements contained terms which represented either directly or by implication that certain fibers ",ere present when such ",as not the case.

Among such t81~ms, but not limited thereto, ,yas the tern1 "Linen 'V leave, whe,n no linen was present in the said product. PAR. 4. Certain of said textile fiber products were further 111isbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, or labeled as required under Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and in the ma.nner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Ad. Among such 1nisbranded textile fiber products but not limited thereto were textile fiber products, namely fabrics, without labels and with labels which failed:

1. To disclose the name or other identification issued and registered by the Comlnission or the manufacturer of the product or one or more persons subject to Section 3 of the said Act, with respect to such product.

2. To disclose the percentage of such fibers present by weight. 3. To disc.lose the true generic name of the fibers present. PAR. 5. Certain of said textile. fiber products were misbranded by respondents in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act in that they were not labeled in aecordance with the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: A. Information required under Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in handwriting on labels in violation of Rule 16 (b) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. B. Fiber trademarks were placed on labels without the generic names or the fibers appearing on such labels, in violation 'of Rule 17 (a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. C. Fiber trademarks were used on labels without full and complete fiber content disclosure appearing on such labels, in violation of Rule 17 (b) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. 466 FEDERAL T-TRADE' COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint 61 F.

PAR. 6. After certain textile fiber products were shipped in comnlerce, respondents removed or caused or participated in the removal of the stmnps, tags, labels, or other means of identifieation required by the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act to be affixed to such textile fiber products prior to the time such textile fiber products were sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer, in violation of Section 5 (a) of said Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

PAR. 7. Certain of said textile fiber products were falsely and deceptively advertised in that respondents in making disclosures or implications as to the fiber content of such textile fiber products in written advertisements used to aid, prOlllote, and assist directly or indirectly in the sale or offering for sale of said products, failed to set forth the required information as to fiber content as specified Section 4(c) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and in the manner and fornl prescribed by the Rules and Regulations pro- 111ulgated under said Act.

Among such textile fiber products but not limited thereto, were fabrics which were falsely and deceptively advertised in The Courier- Journal, a newspaper published in the city of Louisville, Corrunon- ,yealth of Kentucky and ha.ving a wide circulation in said State and various other States of the United States, in the following respects: 1. The true generic names of the fibers in such articles were not set forth.

2. The generic names of the fibers contained in such products were not set forth in the order of predominance by weight. PAR. 8. Certain of said textile fiber products were falsely and c1eeeptively advertised in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act in that they were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Among such textile fiber products but not limited thereto, were textile fiber products which were falsely and deceptively advertised in The Courier-Journal, a newspaper published in the city of Louisville Commonwealth of n::entucky and having a wide circulation in said State and various other States of the United States in the following respects :

A. Fiber trade.marks were used in advertising textile fiber products namely fabrics, without a full disclosure of the fiber conte-nt information required by the said Act, and the Rules and Regulations thereunder-r in at least one insta.nce in said advertisements, in violation Rule 41 (a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. , THE FABRIC SHOP, INC., ET AL. 467 463 Complaint B. Fiber trademarks were used in advertising textile fiber products namely fabrics, containing more than one fiber and such fiber trademarks did not appear in the required fiber content infornlation in imlllediate proximity and conjunction with the generic names of the fibers to which they related in plainly legible type or lettering of equal size and conspicuousness, in violation of Rule 41 (b) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

C. Fiber trademarks were used in advertising textile fiber products namely fabrics, containing only one fiber and such fiber trademarks did not appear, at least once in the said advertisenlents in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic names of the fibers to which they related in plainly legible and conspicuous type, in violation of Rule 41 ( c) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. D. The generic name of a fiber was used in advertising textile fiber products, in such a manner as to be false, deceptive, and nlisleading as to fiber content and to indicate, directly or indirectly, that such textile fiber product was composed wholly or in part of such fiber when such was not the case, in violation of Rule 41 (d) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

Among such products, but not limited thereto ivere textile fiber products, namely fabrics, advertised as ':Linen 1Veave :' thus implying that such products were composed wholly or in part of linen when in fact the products contained no linen.

E. Nonrequired information and representations used in advertising textile fiber products were false, deceptive and misleading as to the fiber content of the textile fiber products and were set forth and used so as to interfere with, minimize and distract from the required information, in violation of Rule 42 (b) of the aforesaid Rules andRegulations. A1nong such products, but not linlited thereto, were textile fiber products, nanlely fabrics, advertised as "Linen ,,\Veave:' thus representing, directly or by implication, that the said products contained linen when such was not the case.

PAR. 9. Certain of said textile fiber products were falsely and deceptively advertised by means of labels affixed to such textile fiber products in that the names of fur-bearing animals, including leopard and ocelot, but not limited thereto, were used in the advertising of such products when said products or parts thereof in connection with which the naflnes of the fur~bearing animals were used were not furs or fur products within the meaning of the Fur Products Labeling Act and did not contain the hair or fiber of such fur-bearing anilnals, in violation of Section 4 (g) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification , Complaint 61 F.

Act and Rule 9 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. PAR. 10. The acts and practices of respondents, as set forth above were, and are, in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations ' promulgated thereunder, and constituted, and now constitute, unfair lllethods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices, in commerce, under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 11. Subsequent to the effective date of the ,V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and more especially since July, 1961 , respondents have introduced into commerce, sold, transported, distributed, delivered for shipment, and offered for sale in commerce wool products as "commerce" and "wool products" are defined in said Act. PAR. 12. Certain of said wool products were misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged or labeled with any 01 the information required under the provisions of Section 4 (a) (2) of the \Y 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 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 bolts of fabric with labels which failed: 1. To disclose the true generic names of the fibers present. 2. To disclose the percentage of such fibers. 3. To disclose the name, or other identification issued and registered by the Commission, of the manufacturer of the product or one. or more l)ersons subject to Section 3 of the said Act, with respect to such product.

PAR. 13. Certain of said wool products were misbranded in violation of the \Y 001 Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and P~gulations promulgated thereunder in the following respect:

Information required under Section 4 (a) (2) of the \Y 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set out in handwriting on labels, in violation of Rule 10(a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. PAR. 14. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth paragraphs 11 , 12 and 13, were and are in violation of the 1Yool 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.

THE FABRIC SHOP, INC., ET AL. 469 463 Decision and Order DECISION AND ORDER TIle Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and the '\iV ool Products Labeling Act 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 fonn of order; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to issue herein, a statenlent 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 such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission 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, The Fabric Shop, Inc., is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, ,with its office and principal place of business located at 218 South Fourth Street, in the city of Louisville Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Respondents Julius Lazar and '\Yerner 1-Ierz are officers of 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 orderred That respondents The Fabric Shop, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and J ulins Lazar, and '\iV erneI' Herz, 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, delivery for introduction sale, advertising, or offering for sale, in commerce, or the ti'ansportation or causing to be transported in commerce, or the importation into the United States, of any textile fiber product; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation, or c:tusing to be transported, of any textile fiber product which has been 728-122--65---- 470 FEDEij,AL rrRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS D~ision and Order 61 F.

advertised or offered for sale in commerce; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported, after shipment in comnlerce, of any textile fiber product, whether in its original state or contained in other textile fiber products, as the terms "commerce" and "textile fiber product" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, do forthwith cease and desist froln:

A. Misbranding textile fiber products by :

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

2. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, invoicing, advertising, or otherwise identifying such products by representing either directly or by implication, through the use of such terms as "Linen Weave" or any other such terms that any fibers are present in a textile fiber product when such is not the case.

3. Failing to affix labels to such textile fiber products showing each element of infornTation required to be disclosed by Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. 4. Setting forth on labels affixed to textile fiber products information required under Section 4 (1) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting.

5. Using a fiber tradmnark on labels affixed to such textile fiber products without the generic name of the fiber appearing on such la,be1.

6. Using a generic name or fiber trademark on any label whether required or nonrequired, without making a full and complete fiber content disclosure in accordance with the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder the first time such generi' c nmne or fiber trademark appears on the label B. Falsely and deceptively advertising textile fiber products by: 1. ~taking any representations, by disclosure or by implication, as to the fiber content or any textile fiber product in any written advertisement which is used to aid, promote, or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale of such textile fiber product, unless the same information required to be shown on the stamp, tag, label or other means of identification under Section 4(b) (1) and (2) of the Textile THE FABRIC SHOP, INC., ET AL. 471 463 Decision and Order Fiber Products Identification Act is contained in the said advertisement, except that the percentages of the fibers present in the textile fiber product need not be stated. 2. Vsing any nanle, word, depiction, descriptive matter or other symbol, which connotes or signifies a fur-bearing animal, unless such products or parts thereof in connection with which such name, word, depiction, descriptive Inatter or other symbol is used, are furs or fur products within the meaning of the Fur Products Labeling Act., provided, however, that where a textile fiber product contains the hair or fiber of a fur-bearing animal, the name of such animal, in con function with the word "fiber" "hair~' or "blend" ma be used.

3. Using a fiber trademark in advertising textile fiber products without a full disclosure of the required fiber content information in at least one instance in the said advertisement.

4. Using a fiber trademark in advertislllg textile fiber products containing 111ore thtlll one fiber without such fiber trademark appearing in the required fiber content information iInmediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fiber in plainly legible type or lettering of equal size and conspicuousness.

5. Using a fiber trademark in advertising textile fiber products containing only one fiber without such fiber trademark appearing at least once in the advertisement, in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fiber, in plainly legible and conspicuous type. 6. Using a generic name of a fiber in advertising textile fiber products in such a maimer as to be false, deceptive or misleading as to fiber content or to indicate, directly or indirectly, that such textile fiber products are composed wholly or in part of such fiber when such is not the case. 7. Using nonrequired infonnation and representations in advertising textile fiber products in such a manner as to be false, deceptive or Inisleacling as to the fiber content of the textile fiber products or so as to interfere with, minimize or detract from required information.

1 t is further ordered That respondents The Fabric Shop, Inc., a corporation and its officers, and Julius Lazar, and Werner Herz, hidividually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents' repre- Syllabus 61 F.

sentatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device do forthwith cease and desist from removing, or causing or participating in the removal of the stamp, tag, label, or other identification required to be affixed to any textile fiber product, wfter such textile fiber product has been shipped in commerce, and prior the time such textile fiber product is sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer.

It is further o't'dered That respondents The Fabric Shop, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and J uous Lazar, and \Verner Herz, 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 into commerce or offering for sale, sale, transportation, distribution or delivery for shiplnent in COJl11nerce of any wool product, as "commerce" and "wool product" are defined in the\V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding such products by: A. Failing to securely affix to or place on ea.ch such product a stamp, tag, label or other means of identification showing in a clear and conspicuous manner, e.aeh element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (a) (2) of the \V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939.

B. Setting forth on labels affixed to wool products inforn1ation required under Section 4(a) (2) of the vVool Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting.

I t is fu,rthe1' m'dered 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.