Harry D. Cooper & Co., Inc.

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

In true Marrer or HARRY D. COOPER & CO., INC., ET AM.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-838. Complaint, Sept. 28, 1964—Decision, Sept. 28, 1964 Consent order requiring Boston, Mass., manufacturers of wool products to cease violating the Wool Products Labeling Act by labeling fabrics falsely as containing 85% reprocessed cashmere, 15% nylon; failing to disclose on labels the percentages of the various fibers contained in wool products and HARRY D. COOPER & CO., INC., ET AL. 899 Complaint nD © n to identify the manufacturer, etc.; using the term “cashmere” in leu of the word “wool” on labels without setting forth the correct percentage of the cashmere; and abbreviating required information on labels. 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 Harry D. Cooper & Co., Inc., a corporation, and Harry D. Cooper, individually and as an officer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of the said Acts and Rules and Regulations 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 respect as follows:

ParacraPH 1. Respondent Harry D. Cooper & Co., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Individual respondent, Harry D. Cooper is an officer of said corporation and formulates, directs and controls the acts, policies and practices of corporate respondent, including the acts and practices hereinafter referred to.

Respondents are manufacturers of wool products with their office and principal place of business located at 85 Harrison Avenue Extension, Boston, Massachusetts.

Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1989, respondents have manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced into commerce sold, transported, distributed, delivered for shipment, shipped 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, but not limited thereto, were fabrics stamped, tagged or labeled as containing 85% reprocessed cashmere, 159 nylon whereas in truth and in fact, said fabrics contained substantially different amounts of fibers than represented. Decision and Order 66 F.T.C.

Par. £. 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 sach misbranded weol products, but not limited thereto, were certain fabrics with labels on or affixed thereto which failed to disclose :

(a) 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 present in the wool product in the amount of 5% or more by weight; (3) the aggregate of all other fibers.

(b) The name or other identification issued and registered by the Commission of the manufacturer of the wool products or one or more persons subject to Section 8 of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 with respect to such wool products, Par. 5. Certain of said wool products were misbranded in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1989, in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that:

1. Words and terms used in required information descriptive of fiber content were set out in abbreviated form on the stamp, tag, label or other means of identification on or affixed to wool products in violation of Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. 2, The term “cashmere” was used in lieu of the word “wool” on labels affixed to wool products without setting forth the correct percentage of the cashmere, 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 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 HARRY D, COOPER & CO., INC., ET AL, 901 898: Decision and Order 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 Harry D. Cooper & Co., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with its office and principal place of business located at 35 Harrison Avenue Extension, Boston, Massachusetts. .

Respondent Harry D. Cooper is an officer of said corporation and his 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 Lt is ordered, That respondents Harry D. Cooper & Co., Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Harry D. Cooper, individually and as an officer 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, delivery for shipment or shipment in commerce, of wool fabric or other wool products, as “commerce” and “wool product” are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 19389, 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. Complaint 66 E.T.C.

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 of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

3. Setting forth words and terms in required information under Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products’ Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form on labels aftixed to wool products. 4. Using the term “cashmere” in lieu of the word “wool” on labels affixed to wool products without setting forth the correct percentage of the cashmere present.

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.