Marchessa of Italy, Inc.

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

I" THE MA 1T MARCHESSA OF ITALY, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF TH- FEDERAL TRE COMMISSION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 0-736. Complaint, Apr. 24, 1964-Decision, Apr. 24, 1964 Consent order requiring .New York City manufacturers of wool products to cease violating the Wool Products Labeling Act by slich practices as labeling as 50% mohair, 45% wool, 5% nylon, sweaters which contain substantially different fibers and amounts than so represented; by failng to disclose on sweater labels the percentage of the total fiber weight of wool and other fibers and the manufacturer, and using the word "mohair" in place of the word wool"

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 vest;d in it by said Acts, the Federal TTade Commission, having reason to believe ilat Marchessa of Italy, Inc., a corporation, and Irving Rosenthal, individllally and as an offcer of said corporation hereinaftr referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of the said Acts and the Rules and Rcgulations promulgated under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, 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 respoot as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Marchessa of Italy, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the Stat; of ew York.

Individual respondent Irving Rosenthal is an offcer of the said corporation and eooperrtes in formulating, directing and controllng the acts, policies and practices of the corporate respondent including ile acts and practices hereinafter referred to. Respondents are manufacturers of wool products with their offce and principal place of business located at 519 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date ofthe Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, respondents have manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced into commerce, sold, transported distributed delivercd for shipment, shipped and offered for sale in commerce as commel'e.e " is defined in said Act, wool products as "wool product" is defined therein.

MARCHESSA OF ITALY INC. ET AL. 553 652 Complaint PAR. 3. Certain of said wool products were misbranded by respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a) (1) of the W 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated therelmder, in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped,. tagged labeled or otherwise identified with respect to the character and amount of tlle constituent fibers contained therein. Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto, were sweaters stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified as contain- Ing 50% mohair, 45% wool, 5% nylon, whereas in truth and in fact said sweaters contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than represented.

PAR. 4. Certa,in of said wool products were further misbmnded by respondents in tllat they were not stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified as required under the provisions of Section4(a) (2) the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

.Aong such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto, were certain sweaters with labels on or affed thereto, which failed to disclose:

1. The percentage of the total fiber weight of the wool product exclusive of orna,mentation, not exceeding 5 percentum of said total fiber weight of, (1) woolen fibers; (2) each fiber other than wool if said percentage by weight of such fiber is 5 pcrcentum or more; (3) the aggregate of all other fibers.

2. The name of the manufacturer of the wool product or the name of one or more persons subject to Section 3 with respect to such wool product.

PAR. 5. Certain of said wool products were misbranded in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that the term "mohair" was used in lieu of the word wool" in setting forth the required fiber content information on labels affxed to wool products without setting forth the correct percetage of the mohair present, in violation of Rule 19 of the Rules and Regulations under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939. 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 1939 and the Rules and Reguations 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 Tmde Commission Act. 313-121--70-- 554 FEDERAL TRADE CQM11ISSION DECISIOXS Decision and Order 65 F.

DECISION AXD ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof with violation of the IV 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the respondents having been selTed WIth notice of said determination and with a copy of the complaint the C0111111i88ion intended to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and The respondents and counsel for the C0111mission having thereafter executed an agre.ement 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 settlmnent purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as set forth in such COllphl.int, 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 fornl comtemplatecl by said agree ment, makes the following j urisdictiollal findings, and enters the fol lowing order:

1. Respondent, :lIarchessa of Italy, Inc., is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the la 'ws of the State of New York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 519 8th Avenue, New York, New York. Respondent, Irving Rosenthal is an offcer of said corporation and his address is the saine as that of saiel corporation. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of thc subject ll1atter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered That respondents Marchessa of Italy, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and Irving Rosenthal, individually and as an offcer 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, distribution or delivery for shipment, or shipment ill C011n1erce, of s'veatcrs or ot,her \'ool products, as "commerce:: and "wool product': are deEmcd in the 'Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from:

SOUTHERN SIDIKG CO., ETC. 555 552 Complaint Misbranding sucb products by:

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

2. Failing to securely affx to, or place on, each such product a stamp, tag, label or other means of identification showing in a clear and conspicuous lllanner each element of information re. quired to be disclosed by Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Aet of 1939.

3. Using the term "ll1ohair" in lieu of the word "Wool" in setting forth the required information on labels affxed to wool products without setting forth ,the correct percentage present. It i" further orde,.ed That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, iie with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order. IN 'l"HE MATTER OF LEO MERVIS ET AL. DOING BUSINESS AS SOl)THEM SIDING COMPANY, ETC.

CONSEKT onder, ETC., IX REGARD TO THE ALLEG:ED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE CO::MISSION ACT Docket C-737. Cotnplaint, Apr. 24, 1964-Def:ision, Apr. 24, 1964 Consent order requiring Kew Orleans sellers to the public of aluminum and insulated siding IJI"odncts to cease representing falsely, through their salesmen, that they would promote the houses of purchasers as model for the demonstration of their products, that purchasers \vauld receive commissions from sales resulting from such use of their houses, and that the commissions would offset all or a substantial amount of the cost af installation of the siding.

PI...AINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Leo :Mcrvis and Celia Mervis, individually and as copartners, trading and doing business as Southern Siding Company and as Housecraft, hereinafter Teferred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in 556 FEDERAL TRADE COM3nSSION DECISIONS Complaint 65 F.

respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARGRAPH 1. Respondents Leo Mervis and Celia Mervis are individuals and copartners, trading and doing business as Southern Siding Company and as Houseeraft, with their principal offce and place of business located at 3601 Pine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. PAR. 2. Respondents are now, and for some time last past have been engaged in the ac1vertising offering for sale, sa.l and distribution of aluminum and insulated siding products to the public. PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents now cause, and for some time last past have caused, their said products, when sold, to be shipped nom their place of business in the State of Louisiana to purchasers thereof located in various other States of the United States, and maintain, and at all times mentioned herein have maintained, a substantial course of trade in said products in commerce as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 4. In the course and conduct of their business and for the purpose of inducing the purchase of their siding products, respondents through their salesmen and representatives, have represented, di- Tectly or by implication, that respondents would establish and promote the houses of purchasers as models for the demonstration and advertising of respondents' products; that purchasers would receive commissions from sales resulting from the use of such houses as models and that such commissions would offset all or a substantial part of the cost of installation of such siding.

PAR. 5. In truth and in fact, respondents did not establish and promote the houses of purchasers as models for the demonstration and advertising of their products and made no efforts to utilize the houses of purchasers to sell their products to others. As a result, purchasers did not receive commiscions to offset any part of the cost of the installation of respondents' siding.

Therefore, the statements and representations set forth in Paragraph Four above, were and are false, misleading and deceptive. PAR. 6. In the couduct of their business, at all times mentioned here- , respondents have been in substantial competition, in commerce with corporations, firms and individuals in the sale of aluminum and insulated siding products of the same general kind and nature as t.hose sold by respondents.

PAR. 7. The use by respondents of the aforesaid false, misleading and deceptive st.atements, represent.at.ions and practices has had, and now has, the capacity and t.tendency to mislead members of the purchasing public int.o the erroneous and mistaken belief that said state- , ,, SOUTHERN SIDING CO. , ETC. 557 1555 DDeision and Order ments and representations were and are true and into the purchase of substantial quantities of respondents' products by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief.

PAR. 8. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, were and are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents' competitors and constituted, and now constitute, unfair methods of competition in commerce and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce in violation of Section 5 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 respondents having been served with notice of sajd 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 agree,ment containing a consent order, an admission by respondents of alj the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to issue herein, a st.atement 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. Respondents, Leo Mervis and Celia Mervis, are indlviduals and copartners trading and doing business as Southern Siding Company and as Housecraft ith their offce and principal place of business located at 3601 Pine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. 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 J t is ordered That respondents Leo Mervis and Celia Mervis, individ ually and as copartners, trading and doing business as Southern Siding Company and as Housecraft, or under any other name or names, and respondents' agents, representatives and employees rectly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with 558 FEDERAL TRADE COM!'IlSSION DECISIOXS Complaint 65 F.

the offering for sale, salcand distribution of aluminum and insulating siding products, or other products, in commerce, as "commerce:' is defined in the Federal Trade ConIDlission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Representing, directly or by implication, that respondents wil nse the house or building of any purchaser as a model for demonstration or advertising purposes.

2. Representing, directly or by implication, that purchasers wil receive commissions from sales made as a result of the use of their houses or hnildings as models or for demonstration or advertising purposes.

3. i\fisrcpresenting, in any manner, the amount of compensation or other financial henefits which wm he realized by or is being afforded to any purchaser of respondents' products for cooperating with or assisting them in the resale of such products. It i8 f""ther ordered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, fie with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner