Veaumont Specialty Co., Inc.

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

In the Matrer or VEAUMONT SPECIALTY CO., 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-786. Complaint, July 13, 1964—Decision, July 13, 1964 Consent order requiring New York City manufacturers of wool products to cease violating the Wool Products Labeling Act by such practices as labeling hats as coutaining 100% wool when the hats contained substantially different VEAUMONT SPECIALTY CO., INC., ET AL. 131 1380 Complaint fibers and amounts of fibers than thus represented, and failing to disclose on hat labels the percentage of the total fiber weight. 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 Veaumont Specialty Co., Inc., a corporation, and Abraham Baumann, Hazel Baumann and Paul Brooks, individually and as officers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of the said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promuigated under the Woo] 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 respect.as follows: Paracrary 1. Respondent Veaumont Specialty Co., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Individual respondents Abraham Baumann, Hazel Baumann and Paul Brooks are officers of said corporation and cooperate in formulating, directing and controlling the acts, policies and practices of corporate respondent, including the acts and practices hereinafter referred te.

Respondents are manufacturers of wool hats with their office and principal place of business located at 42 West. 38th Street, New York, New York.

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. 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 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, but not limited thereto, were hats, stamped, tagged, or labeled as containing 100% wool, whereas in truth and in fact said hats contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than represented. Decision and Order 66 EVT.C.

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 hats, but not limited thereto, were certain hats with labels on or affixed thereto which failed to disclose the percentage of the total fiber weight of the wool product, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5 per centum 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 per centum or more; (8) the aggregate of all other fibers.

Pan. 5. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth above were, and are in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1938 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 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 agreeinent, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Veaumont Specialty Co., 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 42 West 38th Street, in the city of New York, State of New York.

SEEMAN BROTHERS, INC. 133 180 Syllabus Respondents Abraham Baumann, Hazel Baumann and Paul Brooks 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 respondents Veaumont Specialty Co., Inc., a corporation, and Abraham Baumann, Hazel Baumann and Paul Brooks, 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 or manufacture for introduction into commerce, or the offering for sale, sale, transportation, distribution or delivery for shipment in commerce, of wool hats 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 such products by:

1. Falsely and 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 conspicuous manner each element ov information required to be disclosed by Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

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.