Ray Selig, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF RAY SELIG, 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-997. Complaint, Sept. 21, 1965-—Decision. Sept. 21, 1965 Consent order requiring New York City importers, manufacturers and jobbers of mill waste, to cease misbranding garnetted fibers and other wool products by failing to label with information required by the Wool Prod-ucts Labeling Act and its rules, furnishing false guaranties that such wool products were not misbranded, and misrepresenting the fiber content of said products on invoices and shipping memoranda in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

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 Ray Selig, Inc., a cor- Complaint 68 FLTC.

portion, and Raymond J. Selig, individually and as an officer of said corporation hereinafter referred to.as respondents, have violated the provisions of the said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Wood 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: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Ray Selig, 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 1265 Broadway, New York, New York. Individual respondent, Raymond J, Selig, is an officer of said corporation and formulates, directs and controls the acts, policies and practices of said corporation. His address is the same as that of said corporation.

Respondents are importers, manufacturers and jobbers of mill waste.

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 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 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 garnetted fibers which were not stamped, tagged or labeled with any of the information required by the aforesaid Act and Regulations.

Par. 4. Respondents furnished false guaranties that certain of their wool products were not misbranded, when respondents in furnishing such guaranties had reason to believe that wool products so falsely guaranteed would be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in commerce, in violation of Section 9(b) of the Woo! Products Labeling Act of 1939.

Par. 5. 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, RAY SELIG, INC., ET AL. 475 473 Decision and Order 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. Par. 6. 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 “100% Cashmere” whereas in truth and in fact the product contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than represented. 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 maintain, and at all times mentioned herein, have maintained a substanial course of trade in said products in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Par. 8. The acts and practices set out in Paragraph Six 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. 9, 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 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 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 Order 68 F.T.C.

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 Ray Selig, 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 1265 Broadway, New York, New York. Respondent Raymond J. Selig 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 Ray Selig, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Raymond J. Selig, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents, commission garnetters 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 in commerce, of garnetted fibers 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 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.

It is further ordered, That Ray Selig, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Raymond J. Selig, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents, commission garnetters 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 in commerce, of garnetted fibers or other wool products as “commerce” and “wool product” are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, MIDWAY HAT CO., INC., ET AL. 477 473 Complaint do forthwith cease and desist from furnishing a false guaranty that any wool product is not misbranded, when the respondents have reason to believe that such wool product may be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in commerce.

It is further ordered, That respondents Ray Selig, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Raymond J. Selig, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents, commission garnetters and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale, or distribution of garnetted fibers 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 fibrous or part fibrous stock 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 cornplied with this order.