Shinyei Company, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF SHINYEI COMPANY, INC.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FLAMMABLE FABRICS ACTS Docket C-l108. Complaint, Sept. 1966-Decision, Sept. , 1966 Consent order requiring a New York City importer and distributor of fabrics to cease importing and selling fabrics which are so highly flammable as to be dangerous when worn by individuals, in violation of the Flammable Fabrics Act.

COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Flammable F'abrics Act, and by virtue of the a thority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that Shinyei Company, Inc. , a corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated the provisions of said Acts, and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Flammable Fabrics 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:

Paragraph 1. Respondent Shinyei Company, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

The respondent is engaged in the sale and distribution of fabrics, with its offce and principal place of business located at 171 Madison Avenue, New York, New York.

PAR. 2. Respondent, subsequent to .July 1 , 1954, the effective date of the Flammable Fabrics Act, has sold and offered for sale in commerce; has imported into the United States; and has introduced, delivered for introduction, transported, and caused to be transported, in commerce; and has transported and caused to be transported for the purpose of sale or delivery after sale, in commerce; as "commerce" is defined in the Flammable Fabrics Act fabric, as that term is defined therein, which fabric was, under Section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act, as amended, so highly flammable as to be dangerous when worn by individuals. SHINYEI CO. , INC. 603 602 Order PAR. 3. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent were and are in violation of the Flammable Fabrics Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and as such constitute unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION AND ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondent named in the caption hereof, and the respondent having been furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Textiles and Furs proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondent with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Flammable Fabrics Act; and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondent of a1I the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondent that the law has been violated as a1Ieged in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission s rules; and The Commission, having reason to believe that the respondent has violated the said Acts, and having determined that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, hereby issues its complaint, accepts said agreement, makes the fo1Iowing jurisdictional findings, and enters the fo1Iowing order: 1. Respondent Shinyei Company, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 171 Madison A venue, New York, New York. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered That respondent Shinyei Company, Inc., a corporation, and respondent's offcers, representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from:

Complaint 70 F. T.

(a) Importing into the United States; or (b) Sellng, offering for sale, introducing, delivering for introduction, transporting, or causing to be transported, in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Flammable Fabrics Act; or (c) Transporting or causing to be transported, for the purpose of sale or delivery after sale in commerce any fabric which, under the provisions of Section 4 of the said Flammable Fabrics Act, as amended, is so highly flammable as to be dangerous when worn by individuals.

It is !urther o?"dered That the respondent herein shan, 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 this order. IN THE MATTER OF FINDLAY FASHIONS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COM)ISSION, THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELl KG AXD THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Sept. 1966 Docket C-l109. Complaint, Sept. 13, 1966' Decision, Consent order requiring a :r ew York City manufacturer to cease misbranding its fur and wool products and falsely invoicing its furs. 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 Findlay Fashions, Inc., a corporation, and Abraham Schnapper and Abraham Greenbaum, individuany and as offcers of said corporation, 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 FINDLAY FASHIONS, INC., ET AL. 605 604 Complaint Wool 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 Findlay Fashions, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under the Jaws of the State of New York.

Respondents Abraham Schnapper and Abraham Greenbaum are offcers of the corporate respondent and formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent including those hereafter set forth. Respondents are manufacturers of fur products with their offce and principal place of business located at 237 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.

PAR. 3. 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 artificaJ1y colored, in violation of Section 4 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 4. 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 any such fur product.

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

Complaint 70 F.

PAR. 5. 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) The term "Persian Lamb" was not set forth on labels in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 8 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The term "natural" was not used on labels to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) 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. (d) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth in the required sequence, in violation of Rule 30 of said Rules and Regulations. (e) Sample fur products used to promote or effect sales of fur produrts were not labeled to show the information required under the said Act and Regulations, in violation of Rule 33 of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 6. 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 such fur products.

PAR. 7. 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) The term "Persian Lamb" was not set forth on invoices in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 8 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. 8. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products LabeUng Act and the , FINDLAY FASHIONS, INC., ET AL. 607 604 Complaint Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competion in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. PAR. 9. 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, shipped and offered for sale in commerce as j1commerce" is defined in said Act, wool products as "wool product" is defined therein. PAR. 10. 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 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 wool products stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified by respondents as 100% wool, whereas in truth and in fact said products contained substantiaHy less than 10070 wool. PAR. 11. 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 wool products with labels on or affxed thereto which failed to disclose the percentage of the total fiber weight of the wool products, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5 per centum of the total fiber weight, of (1) wool; (2) reprocessed wool; (3) reused wool; (4) each fiber other than wool when the percentage by weight of such fiber was 5 per centum or more; and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers.

PAR. 12. 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 samples, swatches or specimens of wool products used to promote or effect sales of such wool products in commerce, were not labeled or marked to show the information required under Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act Decision and Order 70 F.

of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in violation of Rule 22 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. PAR. 13. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth above in Paragraphs Ten, Eleven and Twelve 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 Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondents named in the caption hereof, and the respondents having been furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Texties and Furs proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondents with violation of tbe Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondents that the law has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission s rules; and The Commission, having reason to believe that the respondents have violated the said Acts. and having determined that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, hereby issues its complaint, accepts said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent Findlay Fashions, Inc., is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of ew York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 237 West 37th Street, in the city of New York, State of New York.

Respondents Abraham Schnapper and Abraham Greenbaum are offcers of said corporation and their address is tbe same as that of said corporation.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subj ect FINDLAY FASHIONS, INC., ET AL. 609 604 Order matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is M'dered That respondents Findlay Fashions, Inc. , a corporation, and its offcers, and Abraham Schnapper and Abraham Greenbaum, individually and as offcers of said corporation, 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 and distribution in commerce 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. Representing directly or by implication on labels that the fur contained in any fur product is natural when the fur contained therein is pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed or otherwise artificially colored.

2. Failing to affx labels to fur products showing in words and in figures plainly legible all of tbe information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 3. Failing to set forth the term "Persian Lamb" on labels in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the word "Lamb. 4. Failng to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on labels under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

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 affxed to fur products.

6. Failing to set forth information required under Sec- Order 70 F.

tion 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder on labels in the sequence required by Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

7. Failng to affx 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.

B. Falsely or deceptively 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. Failng to set forth the term "Persian Lamb" in the manner required where an ejection is made to use that term instead of the word "Lamb.

3. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to each such product.

It is further ordered That respondents Findlay Fashions, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and Abraham Schnapper and Abraham Greenbaum, individually and as offcers of the said corporation, 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. Falsely and deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling or otherwise identifying such products as to the character or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. 2. Failing to securely affx 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. Failing to affx labels to samples, swatches or speci- WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. 611 604 Complaint mens of wool products used to promote or effect sales of wool products, showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4 (a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

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.