E. B. I. Sweater Co., Inc.

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

In true MAtTrer or E. B. I. SWEATER 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-857. Complaint, Nov. 18, 1964—Decision, Nov. 18, 1964 Consent order requiring New York City importers of wool products to cease violating the Wool Products Labeling Act by such practices as falsely labeling sweaters “60% mohair, 85% wool, 5% nylon” when they contained Complaint 66 F-.T.C.

substantially different quantities of fibers, and using the word “mohair” instead of “wool” without setting forth the correct percentage of mohair. 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 E. B. I. Sweater Co., Inc., a corporation trading under its own name and as Dantina Fashions, and Conte Mario Co., Inc., a corporation trading under its own name and as Contessa Nina, and Enzo Rasi and Aida Ione Crain, individually and as officers of said corporations, 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 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 E. B. I. Sweater Co., Inc., a corporation trading under its own name and as Dantina Fashions and Conte Mario Co, Inc., a corporation trading under its own name and as Contessa Nina are corporations organized, existing and domg business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. Individual respondents Enzo Rasi and Aida Ione Crain are officers of said corporations and cooperate in formulating, directing and controlling the acts, policies and practices of the corporate respondents including the acts and practices hereinafter referred to. Respondents are importers of wool products with their office and principal place of business located at 10 West 33rd 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, shipped and offered for sale in commerce as “ecommerce” is defined in said Act, wool products as “wool product” is defined therein.

Par. 3. Certain of said wool products were misbranded by 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. E. B. I. SWEATER CO., INC., ET AL, 1115 2113 Complaint Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto, were sweaters stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified as containing 60% mohair, 35% wool, 5% nylon, whereas in truth and in fact, said. sweaters contained substantially different amounts of fibers than represented.

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 prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

Among such misbranded wool products, not not limited thereto, were certain sweaters with labels on or affixed thereto which failed to disclose the percentage of the total fiber weight of the wool product, exclusive of ornamentation, but not exceeding five 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 five percentum or more; (3) 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) Non-required information and representations used on the said products and on the Jabels affixed thereto were false, deceptive and misleading as to the fiber content ofsaid products and were set forth, and used in such a manner as to interfere with the required information, in violation, of Rule 10(b) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. (b) The required stamp, tag, label or mark of identification was minimized and rendered obscure and inconspicuous by: conflicting information and enlarged lettering of the term “mohair” in violation of Rule 11 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. (c) The term “mohair” was used in lieu of the word “wool” in setting forth the required fiber content information on labels affixed to wool products without setting forth the correct percentage of the mohair, 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 66 F.T.C, 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 agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order :

1. Respondents, E. B. I. Sweater Co., Inc., a corporation trading under its own name and as Dantina Fashions. and Conte Mario Co., Inc., a corporation trading under its own name and as Contessa Nina are corporations organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with their office and principal place of business located at 10 West 38rd Street, in the city of New York, State of New York.

Respondents Enzo Rasi and Aida Ione Crain are officers of said corporations, and their address is the same as that of said corporations. 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 E. B. I. Sweater Co., Inc., a corporation trading under its own name and as Dantina Fashions, and Conte Mario Co., Inc., a corporation trading under its own name and as Contessa Nina, and their officers, and Enzo Rasi and Aida Ione Crain, individually and as officers of said corporations, 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 in commerce, of sweaters 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: SAUL §. SIEGAL CO. ET AL. 1117 1113 Syllabus Misbranding such products by :

1. Falsely and deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling or otherwise identifying such products as to the character or amount of 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 of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939. 3. Using non-required information and representations on wool products or on labels affixed thereto in such a manner as to be false, deceptive or misleading as to the fiber content of the wool products or so as to interfere with the information required by the said Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

4, Affixing or placing the stamp, tag, label or mark of identification required under the said Act or the information required by said Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder on wool products in such a manner as to be minimized, rendered obscure or inconspicuous or so as to be unnoticed or unseen by purchasers and purchaserconsumers, when said wool products are offered or displayed for sale or sold to purchasers or the consuming public. 5. Using the term “mohair” in lieu of the word “wool” in setting forth the required fiber content information on labels affixed to wool products without setting forth the correct percentage of the mohair 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.