Yale Woolen Mills

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

In THE Matter oF YALE WOOLEN MILLS ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-504. Complaint, June 12, 1968—Decision, June 12, 1963 Consent order requiring manufacturers of wool products in Yale, Mich., to cease violating the Wool Products Labeling Act by such practices as tagging as “100% wool’, interlining materials which contained a substantial quantity of reprocessed or reused wool, and failing to disclose on labels of certain interlinings the presence of reprocessed or reused wool and the percentage thereof.

Complaint 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 Yale Woolen Mills, a corporation, and Fred N. Andreae, and Robert E. Andreae, 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 of 1989, 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:

Paracrapy 1. Respondent Yale Woolen Mills is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan.

Individual respondents Fred N. Andreae, and Robert E. Andreae are officers of the corporate respondent. Said individual respondents cooperate in formulating, directing and controlling the acts, policies Complaint 62 F.T.C.

and practices of the corporate respondent including the acts and practices hereinafter referred to.

Respondents are manufacturers and distributors of wool products with their principal place of business located at First Street, Yale, Michigan.

Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, 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 product” is defined therein.

Par. 3. 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 of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified with respect to the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. Among such misbranded wool products were certain interlining materials stamped, tagged or labeled as “100% Wool”, whereas, in truth and in fact, said products contained a substantial quantity of reprocessed or reused wool.

Par. 4. Certain of said wool products were further misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified as required under the provisions of Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool 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 certain interlining materials with labels on or affixed thereto which failed (1) to disclose reprocessed wool or reused wool present, and (2) to disclose the percentage of such reprocessed wool or reused wool.

Par. 5. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth above 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. Par. 6. Respondents in the course and conduct of their business, as aforesaid, have made statements on invoices and shipping memoranda to their customers misrepresenting the fiber content of certain of their said products.

YALE WOOLEN MILLS ET AL. 1377 1375 Decision and Order Par. 7. The acts and practices set out in Paragraph 6 have had and now have the tendency and capacity to mislead and deceive the purchasers of said products as to the true content thereof and to cause them to misbrand products manufactured by them in which said materials were used.

Par. 8. The acts and practices of the respondents set out in Paragraph 6 were, and are, all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents’ competitors 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.

DrEcIsIon 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 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 form 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 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 such 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, Yale Woolen Mills, is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan, with its office and principal place of business located at First Street, in the city of Yale, State of Michigan. Respondents Fred N. Andreae and Robert E. Andreae 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 ordered, That Yale Woolen Mills, a corporation, and its officers, and Fred N. Andreae, and Robert E. Andreae, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and Syllabus 62 F.T.C.

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 fabrics or other wool products, as “commerce”, and “wool product” are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from : Misbranding of such products by:

1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling or otherwise identifying such products as to the character or amount of the constituent fibers contained 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 conspicious manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

It is further ordered, That Yale Woolen Mills, a corporation, and its officers, and Fred N. Andreae, and Robert E. Andreae, individually and as ofticers of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of fabrics or any other textile products in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from misrepresenting the character or amount of constituent fibers contained in fabrics or any other textile products on invoices or shipping memoranda applicable thereto or in any other manner. It is 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.