Joette Coat and Suit Co., Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF JOETTE COAT AND SUIT CO., INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1121. Complaint, Oct. 10, 1966-Decision, Oct. 10, 1966 Consent order requiring two New York City coat and suit manufacturers to cease misbranding, deceptively invoicing and falsely guaranteeing its fur and wool products.

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 Joette Coat and Suit Co. , Inc., a corporation, and Joseph Springer, Inc. , a corporation, and Joseph Springer, individually and as an offcer of said corporations, and Charles Yoel, individually and as an employee of 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 in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondents Joette Coat and Suit Co. , Inc., and Joseph Springer, Ine., are corporations organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

JOETTE COAT AND SUIT CO., INC., ET AL. 1059 l05S Complaint Respondent Joseph Springer is an offcer of the corporate respondents and formulates, directs and controls the acts, practice and policies of the said corporate respondents including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondent Charles Y oel is an employee of the corporate respondents and formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondents including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are manufacturers of fur products and wool products with their offce and principal place of business located at 246 West 38th Street, in the city of New York, State of 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 or otherwise falsely or deceptively identified with respect to the name of the country of in violation of Sec- origin of furs contained in such fur products, tion 4 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Among such misbranded fur products, but not Jimited thereto, were fur products labeled to show the country of origin of furs used in such fur products as United States when the country of Poland or Ger- origin of such furs was, in fact, either Sweden, many.

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 Jimited thereto were fur products with labels which failed to show the country of origin of the imported furs contained in the fur products. viola- PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in Complaint 70 F. T.

tion of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they when not labeled in accordance with Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder inasmuch as required item numbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 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:

1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in any such fur product.

2. To show the country of origin of imported furs used in 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 Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder inasmuch as required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 8. Respondents furnished false guaranties under Section 10 (b) of the Fur Products Labeling Act with respect to certain of their fur products by falsely representing in writing that respondents had a continuing guaranty on file with the Federal Trade Commission when respondents in furnishing such guaranties had reasons to believe that the fur products so falsely guaranteed would be introduced, sold, transported and distributed in commerce, in violation of Rule 48 (c) of said Rules and Regulations under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Section 10 (b) of said Act.

PAR. 9. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 10. 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 JOETTE COAT AND SUIT CO., INC., ET AL. 1061 l05S Decision and Order for sale in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in said Act, wool products as "wool product" is defined therein. PAR. 11. 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 labeled or tagged 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 labeled or tagged by respondents as 100 % Wool, whereas in truth and in fact said products contained substantially less than 100% Wool.

PAR. 12. 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 wool products with labels which failed to disclose the percentage of the total fiber weight of the said wool product, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5% of the total fiber weight, of (1) wool; (2) reprocessed wool; (3) reused wool; (4) each fiber other than wool present in the wool product when said percentage of weight of such fiber was 5 '10 or more; and (5) the aggregate of al1 other fibers.

PAR. 13. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth in Paragraphs 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 the Federal Trade Commis- Decision and Order 70 F. T. sion 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 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. Respondents Joette Coat and Suit Co., Inc. , and Joseph Springer, Inc. , are corporations organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with their offce and principal place of business located at 246 West 38th Street, New York, New York. Respondent Joseph Springer is an offcer, and respondent Charles Y oel is an employee, of said corporations, and their address is the same as that of 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 It is ordered That respondents Joette Coat and Suit Co., Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and Joseph Springer, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and Joseph Springer, individually and as an offcer of said corporations, and Charles Yoel, individually and as an employee 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 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 JOETTE COAT AND SUIT CO., INC., ET AL. 1063 l05S Decision and Order 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 country of origin of furs contained in such fur product.

2. Failng to affx labels to fur products showing in words and in 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. 3. Failing to set forth on labels the item number or mark assigned to each such fur product.

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

It is further ordered That respondents Joette Coat and Suit Co., Inc. corporation, and its offcers, and Joseph Springer, Inc. a corporation, and its offcers, and Joseph Springer, individually and as an offcer of said corporations, and Charles Y oel, individually and as an employee of 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 product may be introduced, sold transported, or distributed in commerce. It is further ordered That respondents Joette Coat and Suit Co., Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and Joseph Springer, Inc. a corporation, and its offcers, Joseph Springer, individually and as an offcer of said corporations, and Charles Y oel, individually and as an employee 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 offering for sale, sale, transportation, distribution, delivery for shipment or Complaint 70 F.

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: A. 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. It is further orde,' 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.