Sunray Yarn Co., Inc.

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

In toe Marrer or SUNRAY YARN 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-853. Complaint, Oct. 27, 1964—Decision, Oct. 27, 1964 Consent order requiring New York City importer-wholesalers of wool products to cease misbranding the fiber content of wool yarns and falsely invoicing such products.

CoMPLaINntT 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 Sunray Yarn Co., Inc., a corporation, and Abraham Friedman and Alex Friedman, individually and as ofticers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of the said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 19389, 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:

Paracrapr 1. Respondent Sunray Yarn 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 are president. and secretary-treasurer, respectively of said corporate respondent. They formulate, direct and control the acts, policies and practices of said corporation including the acts and practices hereinafter referred to. SUNRAY YARN CO., INC., ET AL. 1085 1084: Complaint Respondents are importers and wholesalers of wool products with their office and principal place of business located at 349 Grand Street, New York, New York.

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

Par. 3. Certain of said wool products were misbranded within the intent and meaning of Section 4(a) (1) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1989 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 certain yarns stamped, tagged or labeled as containing 100% Mohair, whereas in truth and in fact, said yarns contained substantially less Mohair than represented and in addition contained a substantial amount of non-woolen fibers.

Par. 4. Certain of said wool products were further misbranded 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 yarns 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; and (8) the aggregate of all other fibers.

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 the following respects:

(a) Information required under Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations described a portion of the fiber content as “Rhovyl” and also as “viscose” instead of using the common generic names of said fibers, in violation of Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

(b) The term “Mohair” was used in lieu of the word “wool” in setting forth the required fiber content information on labels affixed Decision and Order 66 F.T.C.

to wool products without setting forth the correct percentage of the mohair present, in violation of Rule 19 of said Rules and Regulations. 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, 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. 7. 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 from their place of business in the State of New York to purchasers located in various other States of the United States, and maintained a substantial course of trade in said products in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Par. 8. 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.

Among such misrepresentations, but not limited thereto, were statements representing the fiber content thereof as “Mohair” whereas in truth and in fact, said yarns contained substantially different. fibers and amounts of fibers than represented.

Par. 9. The acts and practices set out in Paragraph Eight 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 sold by them in which said materials were used.

Par. 10. 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, 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 SUNRAY YARN CO., INC., ET AL. 1087 1084 Decision and Order 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 Sunray Yarn 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 349 Grand Street, in the city of New York, State of New York.

Respondents Abraham Friedman and Alex Friedman 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 ft is ordered, That respondents Sunray Yarn Co., Inc., a corporation and Abraham Friedman and Alex Friedman, individually and as officers of said corporation and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from introducing into commerce, or offering for sale, selling, transporting, distributing or delivering for shipment in commerce wool yarn or any other wool products, as “commerce” and “wool product” are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939:- 1. Which are falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified as to the character or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein.

2. Unless each such product has securely affixed thereto or placed thereon a stamp, tag, label or other means of identification; (a) Correctly 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. Complaint 66 F.T.C.

(b) Setting forth the common generic name of fibers in the required information on labels, tags or other means of identification attached to wool products. (c) Correctly setting forth the percentage of mohair contained in wool products when that term is used on labels as required information in lieu of the word “wool.” It is further ordered, That respondents Sunray Yarn Co., Inc., a corporation, and Abraham Friedman and Alex Friedman, 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 offering for sale, sale or distribution of yarn 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 yarn 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.