Top Flight Fashions, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF TOP FLIGHT FASHIONS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C'-1022. Complaint, Dec. 10, 1965-Decision, Dec. 10, 1965 Consent order requiring three affiliated New York City manufacturers and wholesalers of fur and wool products to cease deceptive labeling and invoicing their products and furnishing false guaranties. TOP FLIGHT FASHIONS, INC. , ET AL 1009 1008 Complaint COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fur Products Labeling 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 Top Flight Fashions, Inc. , a corporation, Top Flight Rainwear Company, Inc. , a corporation, Sophisticate Fashions, Inc. , a corporation and Samuel Wind, Charles Scharff and N. Kalmar Wind, individuelly and as officers of the said corporations, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Top Flight Fashions, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondent Top Flight Rainwear Company, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondent Sophisticate Fashions, Inc. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondents Samuel Wind, Charles Scharff and N. Kalmar Wind, as officers of the corporate respondents, formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondents including those hereinafter set forth. Respondents are manufacturers and wholesalers of fur products and wool products with their office and principal place of business located at 226 West 37th Street, New York, New York. PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9 , 1952, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in the manufacture for introduction into commerce, and in the sale, advertising, and offering for sale in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution in commerce, of fur products; and have manufactured for sale, sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of furs which have been shipped and received in commerce as the terms "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

10lD FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint 68 F.

PAR. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely or deceptively identified with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 4 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto were fur products which were labeled as "mink" when fur contained in such fur products was, in fact, "Japanese Mink, PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled to show that fur contained therein was natural, when, in fact, such fur was pointed, bleached dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Section 4 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were not labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto were fur products with labels which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product.

2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur product was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

(a) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth on labels in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations. (b) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in handwriting on labels, in violation of Rule 29 (b) of said Rules and Regulations. (c) Sample fur products used to promote or effect sales of the products were not labeled to show the information required under the said Act and Regulations, in violation of Rule 33 of said Rules and Regulations.

(d) Required item numbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. TOP FLIGHT FASHIONS, IK(;; ET AI. 1011 1008 Complaint PAR. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondents in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under such Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products covered by invoices which failed to show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product.

PAR. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth on jnvoices in abbrevjated form, jn violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations. (b) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 9. Respondents furnished false guaranties that certain their fur products were not misbranded, falsely invoiced or falsely advertised when respondents in furnishing such guaranties had reason to believe that fur products so falsely guaranteed would be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in commerce, in violation of Section 10 (b) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 10. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfajr and deceptjve acts and practices and unfair methods of competi tion in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. PAR. 11. Subsequent to the effective date of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, respondents have manufactured for introduction jnto commerce, introduced into commerce, sold, transported distributed, delivered for shipment, shipped and offered for sale in commerce, as "commerce" js defined in said Act, wool products as "wool product" js defjned therein.

PAR. 12 . Certain of said wool products were misbranded 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 wool products with labels on or affixed thereto, which Decision and Order 68 F.

failed to disclose the percentage of 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 present in the wool product in the amount of 5% or more by weight; (3) the aggregate of all other fibers. PAR. 13. 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: 1. Information required under Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set out on labels in abbreviated form in violation of Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. 2. Samples, swatches or specimens of wool products subject to the Act were not labeled in violation of Rule 22 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 14. 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, the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Fur Products Labeling Act, 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 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:

TOP FLIGHT FASHIONS, INC. , ET AL 1013 1008 Decision and Order 1. Respondent Top Flight Fashions, 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 226 West 37th Street, New York, New York. Respondent Top Flight Rainwear Company, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, and its office and principal place of business is the same as that of respondent Top Flight Fashions, Inc. Respondent Sophisticate Fashions, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of K ew York, and its office and principal place of business is the same as that of respondent Top Flight Fashions, Inc. Respondents Samuel Wind, Charles Scharff and N. Kalmar Wind are officers of the said corporations and their address is the same as that of the 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 I t is ordered That respondents Top Flight Fashions, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, Top Flight Rainwear Company, Inc. , a corporation, and its officers, Sophisticate Fashions, Inc. , a corporation, and its officers, and Samuel Wind, Charles Scharff and N. Kalmar Wind, 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 sale, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in cor.nmerce of any fur product; or in connection with the manufacture for sale, sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution, of any fur product which is made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. Misbranding fur products by:

1. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying any such fur product as to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product.

Decision and Order 68 F.

2. Representing directly or by implication on labels that the fur contained in any fur product is natura! when the fur contained therein is pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed, or otherwise artificially colored. 3. Failing to affix labels to fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 4. Setting forth information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form on labels affixed to fur products.

5. Setting forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting on labels affixed to fur products.

6. Failing to affix labels to sample fur products used to promote or effect sales of fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and of the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

7. Failing to set forth on labels the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

B. Falsely or deceptivcly invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices, as the term "invoice " is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Setting forth information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

3. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to fur products.

It is further ordered That respondents Top Flight Fashions, Inc. a corporation, and its officers, Top Flight Rainwear Company, Inc. a corporation, and its officers, Sophisticate Fashions, Inc. , a cor- TOP FLIGHT FASHIONS, INC., ET AL 1015 1008 Decision and Order poration, and its officers, and Samuel Wind, Charles Scharff and N. Kalmar Wind, individually and as officers of the said corporations, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from furnishing a false guaranty that any fur product is not misbranded, falsely invoiced or falsely advertised when the respondents have reason to believe that such fur products may be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in commerce. It is further ordered That respondents Top Flight Fashions, Inc. a corporation, and its officers, Top Flight Rainwear Company, Inc. , a corporation, and its officers, Sophisticate Fashions, Inc. , a corporation, and its officers, and Samuel Wind, Charles Scharff and N. Kalmar Wind, individually and as officers of the 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, delivery for shipment or shipment in commerce, of wool products, as "commerce" and "wool product" are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding wool products by:

1. Failing to securely affx 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 bc disclosed by Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

2. Setting forth on labels affixed to wool products information required under Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

3. Failing to label samples, swatches or specimens of wool products subject to the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 which are used to promote or effect sales of such wool products with the information required under Section 4 (a) (2) of the said Act.

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. Complaint 68 F.