Simon and Mogilner

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

IN THE MATTER OF SIMON AND MOG1LNER ET AL.

CONSE;-T ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COM MISSION;-, Tile WOOL PRODUCTS LABELI"G AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket C-lfl4o. Complaint, June 30, 1.97--Decision, June 30, 1967 Consent order requiring a Birmingham, Ala., manufacturer of children clothing to cease misbranding and falsely guaranteeing its wool and textile fiber products and falsely advertising its textile fiber products. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission 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 Simon and Mogilner, a partnership, and Isadore E. Simon, Emanuel Mogilner and Blair Simon, individually and as copartners trading as Simon and MogilDer, and Jerrold A. Simon individually and as Director of Quality, Finishing and Packaging of Simon and Mogilner, and Max Friedman, individually and as Assistant General Manager of Simon and Mogilner, sometimes hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Textie 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 its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Simon and Mogilner is a partnership. Respondents Isadore E. Simon, Emanuel :\10gilner and Blair Simon are individuals and copartners trading as Simon and Mogilner. Respondent .J enold A. Simon, is an employee of Simon and Ivogilner acting in the capacity of Director of Quality, Finishing and Packaging. Respondent Ylax Friedman, is: an employee of Simon and Mogilner acting in the capacity of Assistant General Manager.

Respondents are engaged in the manufacture and sale of wool and textile fiber products, including children s clothing, with their Complaint 71 F.

principal offce and place of business located at 1420 14th Street SW., city of Birmingham, State of Alabama, 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 the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, wool products as wool product" is defined therein.

PAR. 3. 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 eonstituent fibers contained therein.

Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto were quiled fabrics stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified by respondents as 90% Orion Acrylic, 10% Other Fibers, whereas in truth and in fact, said products contained woolen fibers as well as substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers other than as represented.

PAR. 4. Certain of said wool products were further misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, labeled, tagged, 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 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 wool product, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5 ' of the total fiber weight, of (I) wool; (2) reprocessed wool; (3) reused wool; (4) each fiber other than wool, when sai,l percentage by weight of such fiber was 5% or more; and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers.

PAR. 5. The respondents furnished false guaranties that certain of their said wool products were not misbranded, when respondents in furnishing such guaranties had reason to believe that the wool products so falsely guaranteed might be introduced, sold in commerce, in violation of Sectiontransported, 01' distributed 9 (b) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939. PAR. 6. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth SIMON AND MOGILNER ET AL. 1537 1535 Complaint above were, and are, in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules add Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, and now constitute, unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices, in commerce within the meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. PAR. 7. Respondents, are now and for some time last past have been engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction manufacture for introduction, sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, and the importation into the United States, of textile fiber products; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised delivered, transported and caused to be transported, textile fiber products, which had been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, after shipment in commerce textile fiber products, either in 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. 8. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the I,ules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, invoiced, advertised, or otherwise identified as to the name of the constituent fibers contained therein, Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were quilted fabrics that were labeled as 70% Orlon Acrylic, 30 % Other Fibers, whereas, in truth and in fact, such products contained substantially different f,bers and amounts of fibers other than as represented.

PAR. 9. Certain of the textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified to show each element of information required to be disclosed by 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 quilted fabrics with labels which failed; (1) To disclose the true percentage of the fibers present by weight; and (2) To disclose the true generic names of thc fibers present. PAR. 10. Certain of said textile fiber products were falsely and 1538 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIO:-S Decision and Order 71 F.

deceptively advertised in that respondents in making disclosures or implications as to the fiher content of such textile fiber products in written advertisements used to aid, promote, and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale of said products, failed to set forth the required information as to fiber content as specified by Section 4 (c) 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 textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, was children s clothing which was falsely and deceptively advertised , among others, The Women s Wear DaiJy, a newspaper published in the city and State of Xew York and having an extensive interstate circulation. The aforesaid children s clothing was described by means of such terms, among others, as H Corduroy and "Denim " and the true generic names of the fibers contained in such products were not set forth.

PAR. II. Respondents have furnished false guaranties that their textile fiber products were not misbranded in violation of Section 10 of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. PAR. 12. The acts and practices of respondents, as set forth in Paragraphs Eight, Nine, Ten and Eleven above were, and 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 and 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, '.vould charge respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 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 SIMON AND MOGIL"ER ET AL. 1539 1535 Order said agreement is for settement 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 Simon and cvlogilner is a partnership trading as Simon and MogiJner. Respondents Isadore E. Simon, Emanuel Mogilner and Blair Simon are individuals and copartners trading as Simon and Mogilner, with their offce and principal place of business located at 1420 14th Street, SW., city of Birmingham State of Alabama.

Respondent Jerrold A. Simon is an individual acting in the capacity of Director of Quality, Finishing and Packaging of Simon and NIogilner and his address is the same as that of said partnership.

Respondent Max Friedman is an individual acting in the capacity of Assistant General Manager of Simon and :\Iogilner and his address is the same as that of said partnership. 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 Simon and Mogilner, a partnership, and Isadore E. Simon, Emanuel Mogilner and Blair Simon individually and as copartners trading as Simon and Mogilner, or any other name, and Jerrold A. Simon, individually and as Director of Quality, Finishing and Packaging of Simon and :\Iogilner and Max Friedman, individually and as Assistant General Manager of Simon and ;VIogiJner, 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 such products by: Order 71 F.

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 011, each sllch 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 1 (a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

It is h".that ordered That respondents Simon and Mogilner, a partnership, and Isadore E. Simon, Emanuel Mogilner and Blair Simon, individually and as copartners trading as Simon and Mogilner, or any other name, and Jerrold A. Simon, individually and as Director of Quality, Finishing and Packaging of Simon and Mogilner, and :YIax Friedman, individually and as Assistant General Manager of Simon and JVogilner, 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 wool product is not misbranded under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder when there is reason to believe that any wool product so guaranteed may be introduced, sold, transported or distributed, in COll1merce as the term "commerce" is defined in the aforesaid Act.

It is fw, thel' oTdeTCd. That respondents Simon and Mogilner, a partnership, and Isadore E. Simon, Emanuel :Ylogilner and Blair Simon, individually and as copartners trading as Simon and Nlogilner, or any other name, and Jerrold A. Simon, individually and as Director of Quality, Finishing and Packaging of Simon and :Ylogilner, and Max Frieclman, individually and as Assistant General l\lanager of Simon and Ylogilner, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, de- Every 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, otrering 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 textie fiber products, as the terms "com- SIMON AND MOGIL:-ER ET AL. 1541 1535 Order merce" and "textile fiber product" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: A. Misbranding textile fiber products by: 1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, invoicing, advertising, or otherwise identifying such products as to the name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein.

2. Failing to affx a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification to each such product sho\ving in a clear legible and conspicuous manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. B. Falsely and deceptively advertising textile fiber products by making any representations, by disclosure or by implication, as to fiber content of any textile fiber product in any written advertisement which is used to aid, promote, or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale of such textile fiber products unless the same information required to be shown on thc stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification under Section 4 (b) (I) and (2) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act is contained in the said advertisement, except that the percentages of a fiber present in the textile fiber product need not be stated, It is jUTther O?'dc/'ed That respondents Simon and IVIogilner, a partnership, and Isadore E. Simon, Emanuel Mogilner and Blair Simon, individually and as copartners, trading as Simon and Mogilner, or any other name, anel Jerrold A. Simon, individually and as Director of Quality, Finishing and Packaging of Simon and MogiJner, and Max Friedman, individuany and as Assistant General :Vlanager of Simon and lVlogilner, 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 textile fiber product is not misbranded or falsely invoiced under the provisions of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

It is further ordered That the respondents herein shan, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with forth in detail thethe Commission a report in writing setting manner and form in which they have complied with this order, Complaint 71 F,