Fairmoor Coat & Suit Corporation

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

1:- THE MATTER OF FAIRMOOR COAT & SUIT CORPORATION ET AL. CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING, THE WOOL PRODCCTS LABELING A:-D THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICA TION ACTS Docket C-1179. Complaint, Mar. 1967-Decision, Mar. , 1967 Consent order requiring a ew York City manufacturer of fur, wool and textie products, to cease improperly labeling and invoicing its products. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fur Products Labeling Act, the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Fairmoor Coat & Suit Corporation, a corporation, and Herbert Haar individually and as an offcer 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, the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues ils complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Fairmoor Coat & Suit Corporation is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. Respondent Herbert Haar is an officer of said corporation. formulates, directs and controls the policies, acts and practices of said corporation.

Respondents are manufacturers of fur products, wool products and textile fiber products with their offce and principal place of business located at 512 Seventh Avenue, ::ew 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 manu- FAIRMOOR COAT & SUIT CORP. ET AL. 297 296 Complaint factured 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 artificially 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 to disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact. 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 inasmuch as required item numbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 6. Certain said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondents in that they were not invoiced as required by Seetion 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 disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored when such was the fact PAR. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that said fur products were invoiced to show that the fur contained therein was natural, when in fact such fur was pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 8. Certain of said 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 inasmuch as required iten1 nnm- Complaint 71 F.

bel's were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations.

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 competi tion 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 for sale, in commerce, wool products, as the terms "commerce and "wool product" are defined in said Act. 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 \vool produds, but not limited thereto was a wool product with a label on or affxed thereto which failed to disclose the percentage of the total fiber weight of the said v-lool product, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5% of the total weig' , of (1) wool; (2) reprocessed wool; (3) reused wool; (4) each fiber other than \vool when said percentage by weight of such fiber was 5jY 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 the respective percentages of fibers contained in the front and back of pile fabrics was not set forth in such a manner as to give thc ratio hetwecn the front and back of each of such fabrics where an election was made to separately set out the fiber content of the face and back of the wool products containing pile fabrics, in violation of Rule 26 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. PAR. 13. The acts and practices of the respondents as set out in Paragraphs Ten, Eleven and'J\velve above were, and :1re, in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constitutect, and now constitute, unfair and deceptive acts und practices and un- FAIRMOOR COAT & SLIT COI\P. ET AL. 299 296 Complaint fair methods of competition in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. PAR. 14. Subsequent to the effective date of the TexWe Fiber Products Identification Act on :VI arch 3 , 1960, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction, 111unufacture for introduction, sale, advertising, und offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, and in the importation into the United States, of texWe fiber products; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, textile fiber products, which have been advertised or offered .for sale in commerce; and have sold, offered for sale advertised, delivered, transported 2nd caused to be transported after shipment in commerce, textile fiber products, either iil their original state or contained in other textile fiber products, as the terms "commerce" and "textile fiber product" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. PAR. 15. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified as required under the provisions of Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were textilc fiber products whicli were not labeled show in 'words and figures plainly legible; (1) the true generic names of the constituent fibers present in the textile fiber products; (2) the percentage of each such fiber; and (3) any fiber or group of fibers present in the amount of less than 5 per centum of the total weight of the textile fiber products as "other fiber 01' " other fibers.

PAR. 16. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Reg' ulations promulgated thereunder in that the respective percentages of fibers contained in the front and back of pile fabrics were not set out in such a 111anne1' as to give the ratio betlveen the face and back of such fabrics where an ejection was made to separately set out the fiber content of the face and back of textile fiber products containing pile fabrics, in violation of Rule 24 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. PAn. 17. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth in Paragraphs Fourteen: Fifteen and Sixteen above were, and Decision and Order 71 F. are, in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, and now constitute, unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices, in commerce, under 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 Textiles 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 Commission Act, the Fur Products Labeling Act, the Wool Products Labeling Act of 19:39 and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act; 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. Respondent Fairmoor Coat & Suit Corporation is a corporation organized, exisbng 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 512 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York.

Respondent Herbert Haar is an offcer 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 Fairmoor Coat & Suit Corpora- FAIRMOOR COAT & SUIT CORP. ET AL. 301 296 Decision and Order tion, a corporation, and its offcers, and Herbert Haar, individually and as an offcer 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 or 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 Hfu!' product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. Misbranding any fur product by:

1. Representing directly or by implication on a label that the fur contained in such fur product is natural when the fur contained therein is pointed, bleached dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored. 2. Failing to affx a label to such fur product 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 a label the item number or mark assigned to such fur product.

B. Falsely or deceptively inv'Jicing any fur product by: 1. Failing to furnish an invoice, 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. Representing directly or by implication on an invoice that the fur contained in such fur product is natural when such fur is pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

3. Failing to set forth on an invoice the item number or mark assigned to such product.

It is hather ordered That respondents Fairmoor Coat & Suit Corporation, a corporation, and its officers, and Herbert Haar individually and as an otfc€r of said corporation, and respundents representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate 01' other device, in connection with the introduction, or manufacture for introduction, into commerce, or the offering for sale, sale, transportation, distribution, delivery for shipment 302 FEDERAL TRADE CO)IMISSION DECISIONS Decision and Order 71 F. 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 any wool product by:

1. Failing to securely affx to, or place on each such wool 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 Seetion 4 (a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939. 2. Failing to set forth respective percentages of fibers contained in the front and back of pile fabrics in such a manner as to give the ratio between the froJOt and back of each such fabric where an election is made to separately set out the fiber content of the face and back of such wool product containing pile fabrics.

It is further ordered That respondents Fairmoor Coat & Suit Corporation, a corporation and its offcers, and Herbert IIaal' individually and as an offcer of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, delivery for introduction, manufacture for introduction, sale advertising, or offering for sale, in commerce, or the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, or the importation into the United States, of any textile fiber product: or in connection with the sale, oHering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported, of any textile fiber product which has been advertised or offered for sale, in commerce; or in connection \with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported, after shipment in commerce, of any textile fiber product, whether in its original state or contained in other textile fiber products, as the terms "commerce " and Htextile fiber product" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding any textile fiber product by: 1. Failing to affx a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification to such textile fiber product showing in a clear legible and conspicuous manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Sec:tion 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

2. Failing to set forth respective percentages of fibers contained in the front and back of pile fabrics in such a manner as to give the ratio between the front and back of each such fabric where an election is made to separately set GOTTESMAN CO. 303 296 Complaint out the fiber content of the face and back of such textile products containing pile fabrics.

It is JUTther v1'dered 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.