Outerwear Garments, Inc.

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

Ix roe Matter or OUTERWEAR GARMENTS, 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-868. Complaint, Dec. 21, 1964—Decision, Dec. 21, 1964 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacture of ladies’ wool coats to cease Violating the Wool Products Labeling Act by falsely labeling certain coats as to fiber content and percentage therein, by furnishing false guaranties that the garments were not misbranded, and by failing in other respects to comply with labeling requirements.

Complaint 66 F.T.C.

ComMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Outerwear Garments, Inc., a corporation, and David Alexander, individually and as an officer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Wool Products Labeling Act, 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, Respondent Outerwear Garments, 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 237 West 37th Street, New York, New York. Respondent Outerwear Garments, Inc., is engaged in the manufacture and sale of ladies’ coats composed at least in part of wool. Individual respondent David Alexander is an officer of the corporate respondent, and formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies of the corporate respondent, Outerwear Garments, Inc., including those hereinafter set forth. His office and principal place of business is the same as that of the said corporate respondent. Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and more especially since January 1963, 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. 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 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or tagged with respect to the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained therein.

Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto, were wool products, namely, ladies’ coats, which contained substantially different amounts and types of fibers than were set forth on the labels thereto affixed.

Par. 4. Certain of said wool products were further misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged or labeled as re- OUTWEAR GARMENTS, INC., ET AL. 1309 1807 Decision and Order quired under the provisions of Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act 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 ladies’ coats 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 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 five per centum or more; (8) the aggregate of all other fibers.

Par. 5. Certain of said wool products were misbranded in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

(a) Words which tonstitute the name or designation of fibers which are not present in wool products appear 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 such wool products, in violation of Rule 25 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. (b) The respective percentages of fibers contained in the face and in the back of pile fabrics were not set out in such a manner as to give the ratio between the face and the back of such fabrics where an election was made to separately set out the fiber content of the face and back of wool products containing pile fabrics, in violation of Rule 26 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

Par. 6. Respondents have furnished false guaranties that certain of their wool products were not misbranded, when they knew, or had reason to believe, that the said wool products so falsely guaranteed might be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in commerce in violation of Section 9 of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, Par. 7. 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 Prod- Decision and Order. 66 F.T.C.

ucts 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. Respondent Outerwear Garments, 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 237 West 87th Street, in the city of New York, State of New York.

Respondent David Alexander 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 It is ordered, That respondents Outerwear Garments, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and David Alexander, 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 manufacture for introduction or the introduction into commerce, or the offering for sale, sale, transportation or distribution in commerce of ladies’ coats 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 : A. Misbranding wool products by:

1. Falsely or deceptively 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 or label or other means of identification THE MAGNAVOX CO. 1311 1807 Complaint 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 words constituting the name or designation of a fiber not present in the product in or as part of the listing or marking of required fiber content on the stamps, tags, labels or other means of identification attached to said wool products.

4, Failing to set forth on stamps, tags, labels or other means of identification attached to pile fabrics or products made thereof the ratio between the respective percentages of fibers in the face and back of said fabrics when an election is made to set. out separately the fiber content of the face and back of such pile fabrics.

B. Furnishing false guaranties that said wool products are not misbranded under the provisions of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, when there is reason to believe that the wool products so guaranteed may be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in commerce.

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 worth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order.