B & M Sportswear, Inc.
Volume 69 · 69 F.T.C. 124
Cite this decision
B & M Sportswear, Inc., 69 F.T.C. 124 (1966). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v069-0008
Report an error in this record (decision id v069-0008)
Cited by 0 later FTC decisions
Cites
Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)
IN THE MATTER OF B & M SPORTSWEAR, 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-1033. Complai nt, Jan. 1.9fi6 Decis' ion, Jan. , 1966 Consent order requiring a Massachusetts manufacturer of men s wool athletic jackets to cease misbranding its jackets and interlinings by failing to disclose on labels their true fiber composition. 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 B & M Sportswear, Inc. , a corporation, and Norman Berris and Morris Berris, individually and as offcers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules Complaint 69 F.
the distribution or resale of such products are informed, in writing, of (1) the terms and conditions of the promotional program or plan under which such payments are made, including the services or facilities to be furnished therefor; (2) the availability of such payments on proportionally equal terms to al1 such customers; and (3) if it would not be economically feasible for all such competing customers to furnish such services 01' facilities, alternative services or fadlities such customers can furnish and be paid for on proportionally equal terms.
It is JUTtheT oTcleTecl That respondent House of Lord' , Inc. shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order file with the Commission a report, in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with the order to cease and desist.
Commissioners Rejjy and Jones concurred and have filed a separate concurring statement. Commissioner Elman dissented and has filed a dissenting opinion.