Joyce Sportswear Co.

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

In toe Marrer or JOYCE SPORTSWEAR CO. ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-875. Complaint, Jan. 12, 1965—Decision, Jan. 12, 1965 Consent order requiring Gary, Ind., importers and manufacturers of wool products to cease violating the Wool Products Labeling Act by labeling sweaters as “60% wool, 30% mohair and 10% nylon” when they contained substantially different amounts of fibers, and to cease using the term “mohair” in lieu of “wool” on labels without designating 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 Joyce Sportswear Co., a corporation and Jack Goodman, Willard Wolf and Florence Goodman, individually and as officers 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 Label- JOYCE SPORTSWEAR CO. ET AL. 59 58 Complaint ing 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: ParacrarH 1. Respondent Joyce Sportswear Co. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Illinois.

Individual respondents, Jack Goodman, Willard Wolf and Florence Goodman are officers of said corporation. They cooperate in formulating, directing and controlling the acts, policies and practices of the corporate respondent including the acts and practices hereinafter referred to.

Respondents are importers and manufacturers of wool products with their office and principal place of business located at 925 Adams Street, Gary, Indiana.

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

Par. 8. 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. «Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto, were sweaters stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified as containing 60% wool, 80% mohair and 10% 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 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, but not exceeding 5 per centum of said total fiber weight of: (1) woolen fibers; (2) each fiber other Decision and Order 67 E.T.C.

than wool if said percentage by weight of said fiber is 5 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 of 1939, in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that 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 anp OnrpEr 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. Respondent Joyce Sportswear Co., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Illinois, with its office and principal place of business located at 925 Adams Street, in the city of Gary, State of Indiana. Respondents Jack Goodman, Willard Wolf and Florence Goodman are officers of said corporation and their address is the same as that of said corporation.

VINCENT CIGAR CO. ET AL. 61 58 Sylabus 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 Joyce Sportswear Co., a corporation and its officers, and Jack Goodman, Willard Wolf and Florence Goodman, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or cther 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 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 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.