Mar-Cal Sportswear of California, Inc.

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

IN THE YIATTER OF MAR-CAL SPORTSWEAR OF CALIFORNIA, INC.

TRADING AS Dr VINCI ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IK REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VWLATIOK OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COM MISSWK A D THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1212. Complaint, June 1967-Decision, June, 1967 Consent order requiring a Los Angeles, Calif., clothing manufacturer to cease misbranding its \vool products, and furnishing false guaranties in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act. COMPLAIKT 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 Mar-Cal Sportswear of California Inc. , a corporation, trading as di Vinci, and Joseph A. Capitano individually and as an offcer of the said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Complaint 71 F.

Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under 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 as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Mar-Cal Sportswear of California Inc., trading as di Vinci, is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California.

Respondent Joseph A. Capitano is an offcer of the corporate respondent. He formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are manufacturers of wool products with their offce and principal place of business located at 818 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California.

PAR. 2. Respondents now, and for some time last past, have manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced into commerce, sold, transported, distributed, delivered for shipment shipped and offered for sale in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in said Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, wool products as " \Vool product" is defined therein.

PAR. 3. Certain of said wool products were misbranded by respondents within the intent and meaning of Section ,j (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, 01' otherwise identified with respect to the chm'acter and amount of the constituent flbers contained therein.

Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto, were certain coats stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identifled as containing " looric \;Vool" \vhereas, in truth and in fictct, said coats contained a substantial amount of fibers other than wool. PAR. 4. Certain of said wool products were further misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identifled 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 limit.d thereto were certain coats with labcls on or affxed thereto which failed to disclose the percentage of the total fjber weight of the wool product, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5 per centum of Dr VINCI ET AL. 795 793 Decision and Order said total fiber weight of (1) wool; (2) reprocessed wool; (3) reused wool; (4) each fiber other than wool when said percentage by weight of such fiber was 5 per centum or more; and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers.

PAR. 5. Respondents furnished false guarantie that certain of their wool products were not falsely or deceptively stamped tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified when respondents in furnishing such guaranties had reason to believe that wool products so falsely guaranteed would be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in commerce, in violation of Section 9 (b) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

PAR. 6. 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 methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the ' Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION AKD 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 the 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 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. Respondent Mar-Cal Sportswear of California, Inc., trading as di Vinci, is a corporation organized, existing and doing busi- Order 71 F.

ness under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California with its offce and principal place of business located at 818 South Broadway, in the city of Los Angeles, State of California. Respondent Joseph A. Capitano 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 Mar-Cal Sportswear of California, Inc., a corporation, trading as di Vinci, or any other trade name, and its offcers, and Joseph A. Capitano, 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 offering for sale, sale, transportation, distribution, delivery for shipment or shipment, in commerce, of wool products, as "commerce" and "\vool product" are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding such products by: 1. Falsely and deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, or other1'vise identifying such products as to the character or amount of the constituent flbers contained therein. 2. Failing to securely affx to, or place on, each such prodduct 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 ordend That respondents :VIar-Cal Sportswear of California, Inc. , a corporation, trading as di Vinci, and its offcers and Joseph A. Capitano, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and em- , doployees, directly or through any corporate or other device forthwith cease and desist from furnishing a false guaranty that any wool product is not falsely or deceptively stamped, tagged labeled, or otherwise identified when respondents have reason to believe that such wool product may be introduced, sold, transported, or distributed in commerce.

It is furthe?" 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. BEATRICE FOODS CO. 797 Statement