Blairmoor Knitwear Corporation

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

In rue Matrer or BLAIRMOOR KNITWEAR CORPORATION ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-861. Complaint, Dee. 2, 1964—Decision, Dec. 2, 1964 Consent order requiring manufacturers and importers of wool products, located in Long Island City, N.Y., to cease violating the Wool Products Labeling Act by labeling sweaters falsely as “40% mohair, 40% wool, 20% acetate,” falsely identifying fibers and percentage thereof, and failing in other re spects to comply with labeling requirements. Complaint 66 F.T.C.

Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and of 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 Blairmoor Knitwear Corporation, a corporation and Mademoiselle Fifth Avenue, Inc., a corporation and Tola Knitwear Corp., a corporation and Leon A. Messing, individually and as an officer of said corporations, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1989, 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: Paracrapy 1. Respondents Blairmoor Knitwear Corporation, Mademoiselle Fifth Avenue, Inc., and Tola Knitwear Corp., are corporations organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Individual respondent Leon A. Messing is an officer of the said corporations and formulates, directs, and controls the acts, policies and practices of the corporate respondents including the acts and practices hereinafter referred to.

Respondents are manufacturers and importers of wool products with their office and principal place of business located at 3300 Northern Boulevard, Long Island City, 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 “commerce” is defined in said Act, wool products as “wool product” is defined therein.

Par. 38. 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 promu!gated 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 sweaters stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified as containing 40% mohair, 40% wool, 20% acetate, whereas in truth and in fact, said sweaters contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than represented.

BLAIRMOOR KNITWEAR CORP. ET AL. 1217 1215 Decision and Order 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 products, but 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, 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 misbranced in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act. of 1939, in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereuncer in the following respects: , (a) The term “mohair” was used in lieu of the word “tool” in setting forth the required fiber content information on labels affixed to wool products when certain of the fibers described as “mohair” were not entitled to such designation, in violation of Rule 19 of the Rules and Regulations under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1989. (b) Words which constitute the name or designation of a fiber which was not present in the product appeared in the required fiber content information on the stamp, tag, label, or other mark of identification affixed to the wool product, in violation of Rule 25 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. DecIstIoN 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 Decision and Order 66 F.T.C.

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, Blairmoor Knitwear Corporation, Mademoiselle Fifth Avenue, Inc., and Tola Knitwear Corp., 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 3300 Northern Boulevard, in the city of Long Island City, State of New York.

Respondent Leon A. Messing is an officer of the said corporations, and his 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 Blairmoor Knitwear Corporation, a corporation and its officers, and Mademoiselle Fifth Avenue, Inc., a corporation and its officers, and Tola Knitwear Corp., a corporation and its officers, and Leon A. Messing, individually and as an officer 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 misbranding such products by:

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

MASON, AU & MAGENHEIMER CONF. MFG. CO., INC. 1219 1215. Complaint 3. Using the term “mohair” in lieu of the word “wool” in setting forth the required information on labels affixed to wool products unless the fibers described as mohair are entitled to such designation and are present in at least the amount stated. 4. Using words which constitute the name or designation of a fiber which is not present in the product in or as a part of the listing or marking of required fiber content on the stamp, tag, label, or other mark of identification affixed to the wool product. 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.