John K. Burch Company

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

IN THE C'LATTER OF JOH:" K. BURCH CO:lip ANY ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATIO:- OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket C-.1267. Complaint, Nov. 14, 1967-Decision, l.lov. 14, 1967 Consent order requiring a Grand Rapids, Mich., "\vholesaler of upnolstcry fabrics to cease misbranding and falsely advertising its textile fiber products. JOHN K. BURCH COMPANY ET AL. 833 832 Complaint COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act 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 .Tohn K. Burch Company, a corporation, and .T ohn L. KirchofI, Thomas C. Zoellner and Armand F. Burch, individually 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 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 its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent John K. Burch Company is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan.

Respondents John L. Kirchhoff, Thomas C. Zoellner and Armand F. Burch are offcers of the corporate respondent. They formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of said corporate respondent, including the acts and practices hereinafter set forth. Respondents are wholesalers of upholstery fabrics and supplies with their offce and principal place of business located at 40 Cherry Street, S.W. Grand Rapids, Michigan.

PAR. 2. Respondents are now, and for sometime last past have been, engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction, sale advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, and in the importation into the L"united States, of textie 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 and caused to be transported, after shipment in commerce, textile fiber products, either in their original state or contained in other textie fiber products; as the terms "commerce" and "textile fiber product" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. PAR. 3. 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 Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, invoiced, advertised, or other- , 834 FEDERAL TRADE COM MISSION DECISIONS Complaint 72 F.

wise identified as to the name or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein.

Among such misbranded textie fiber products but not limited thereto, were textile fiber products, namely upholstery fabrics containing more than one fiber with labels which set forth the , namely nylon, in such a mannergeneric name of a particular fiber as to over emphasize the nylon content of the product, to detract from the required fiber content disclosure and to represent or imply, that the products were composed entirely of nylon when in truth and in fact the products contained fibers other than nylon. Also among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were textile fiber products which were falsely and deceptively advertised by means of price lists which set forth the " in such afiber content as, for example Horizon Nylon Frieze, manner as to represent or imply that the products were composed entirely of nylon when in truth and in fact such products contained fibers other than nylon.

PAR. 4. Certain of such textile fiber 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 (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 textie fiber products with labels which failed: 1. To disclose the true generic names of the fibers present; and 2. To disclose the name, or other identification issued and registered by the Commission, of the manufacturer of the product or one or more persons subject to Section 3 of the said Act, with respect to such product.

PAR. 5. 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 Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: A. Nonrequired information was placed on labels in such a manner as to minimize, detract from, and conflict with the required information and in such a way as to be false or deceptive as to fiber content, in violation of Rule 16 (c) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

B. Generic names and fiber trademarks were used on labels without a full and complete fiber content disclosure appearing on such labels, in violation of Rule 17 (b) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

JOHN K. BURCH COMPANY ET AL. 835 832 Complaint C. Generic names of fibers were used in nonrequired information on labels in such a manner as to be false, deceptive or misleading as to fiber content, and to indicate, directly or indirectly, that such textie fiber products were composed wholly or in part of a particular fiber, when such was not the case, in violation of Rule 17 (d) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. PAR. 6. Certain of said textile fiber products were falsely and deceptively advertised in that respondents in making disclosures or implication as to the fiber content of such textile fiber products in , directlywritten advertisements used to aid, promote and assist 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 textie fiber products, but not limited thereto, were upholstery fabrics which were falsely and deceptively advertised by means of price lists, distributed by respondents throughout the United States in that the true generic name of each fiber present in the products was not set forth.

PAR. 7. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised textile fiber products in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act in that said tcxtile fiber products were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

(a) A fiber trademark was used in advertising textile fiber products, without a full disclosure of the fiber content information required by said Act, and the Rules and Regulations thereunder in at least one instance in said advertisement, in violation of Rule 41 (a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. (b) Fiber trademarks were used in advertising textile fiber products, containing more than one fiber, other than permissive ornamentation, and such fiber trademarks did not appear in the required fiber content information in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fibcr in plainly legible type or lettering of equal size and conspicuousness, in violation of Rule 41 (b) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. (0) The generic name of a fiber was used in advertising textie fiber products, namely upholstery fabrics, in such a manner as to be false, deceptive and misleading as to fiber content or to indicate, directly or indirectly, that such textile fiber product was composed Decision and Order 72 F.

wholly or substantially of such fiber, when, such was not the case, in violation of Rule 41 (d) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. (d) AIl parts of the required information were not set forth in immediate conjunction with each other in legible and conspicuous type or lettering of equal size and prominence in violation of Rule 42 (a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. PAR. 8. The acts and practices of respondents as set forth 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 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 tbe respondents having been furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Textiles and Furs proposed to present to thc Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act 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 settement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and other provisions as required by the Commission s Rules; and The Commission having thereafter considered the matter and having determined that it had reason to believe that the respondents have violated the said Acts, and that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, and having thereupon accepted the executed consent agreement and placed such agreement on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in 34 (b) of its Rules the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the foil owing order: 1. Respondent John K. Burch Company is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan, with its offce and principal place of business located at 40 Cherry Street, SW. Grand Rapids, Michigan. JOHN K. BURCH CO:lPANY ET AL. 837 832 Decision and Order Respondents John L. Kirchhoff, Thomas C. Zoellner and Armand F. Burch are offcers of said corporation and their 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 John K. Burch Company, a corporation, and its offcers, and John L. Kirchhoff, Thomas C. Zoellner and Armand F. Burch, individually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and em ployees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, delivery 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, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation or causing to be transported, of any textic 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 "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 the constituent fibers contained therein.

2. Failing to affx labels to such textile fiber products showing in a dear, legible and conspicuous manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. 3. Placing non-required information on labels in such a manner as to minimize, detract from, or conflict with the required information or to be fa)se or deceptive as to fiber content.

4. l)sjng a generic name or fiber trademark on any label, \vhether required or nonrequired, without making a full and complete fiber content disclosure in accordance \with the Act and the Rules and Hegulations thereunrler Decision and Order 72 F.

the first time such generic name or fiber trademark appears on the label.

5. Using the generic names of fibers in non-required information on any label in such a manner as to be false deceptive or misleading as to fiber content or to indicate directly or indirectly, that such textie fiber products are composed wholly or in part of a particular fiber, when such is not the case.

B. Falsely and deceptively advertising textile fiber products by:

1. Making any representations, directly dr by implication, as to the 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 product, unless the same information required to be shown on the stamp, tag, or label or other means of identification under Section 4 (b) (1) and (2) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act is contained in the said advertisement, in the manner and form required except that the percentages of the fibers present in the textile fiber product need not be stated.

2. Using a fiber trademark in advertisements without a full disclosure of the required content information in at least one instance in the said advertisement. 3. Using a fiber trademark in advertising textile fiber products containing more than one fiber without such fiber trademark appearing in the required fiber content information in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fiber in plainly legible type or lettering of equal size and conspicuousness. 4. Using the generic name of a fiber in advertising textile fiber products in such a manner as to be false, deceptive or misleading as to fiber content or to indicate directly or indirectly, that such textile fiber products are composed wholly or in part of such fiber when such is not the case.

5. Failing to set forth all parts of the required information in advertisements of textile fiber products in immediate conjunction with each other in legible and conspicuous type or lettering of equal size and prominence.

MAPLE MANUFACTURING CO. ET AL. 839 832 Complaint 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.