Congress Sportswear Company, Inc.

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

IN THE ~iatter OF CONGRESS SPOR.TS,VEAR CO:MP ANY, INC., ET AL. CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOL. TION OF THE FEDEILH.... TRA.DE CO?lBIISSION AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket 0-1299. Complaint, Pcb. 1G, 19G5-Decision, Feb. 1965 Consent order requiring a Boston, Mass., clothing manufacturer to cease misbranding and falsely guaranteeing its textile fiber products. COl\IPLAINT 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 Conllnission, having reason to believe that Congress Sportswear COll1pany, Inc.., a corporation, and Norman F. Grossman, individually and as an officer of said corporation, hereillaftBr referred to as respondents Complaint 73 F.

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 chan~.es in that respect as follo..,ys: P..A~GRAPH 1. Respondent Congress Sportswear Company, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the Common,vealth of :J\iassachusetts, Respondent Norman F. Grossman is an officer of the corporate respondent. He formulates, directs and controls the acts and practices of the corporate respondent, including the acts and practices hereinafter.r set forth.

Respondents are manufacturers of textile fiber products with their office and principal place of business located at 135 Line.oln Street Boston, ~iassachusetts.

PAH. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act on :Jlarch 3, 1960, respondents ha,ve been and are now engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction, manufacture for introduction. sale. ach-ertising'. and otferinQ' fol' sale. in L. ,commerce, and in the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, and in the importation into the United States, of textile fiber products; and have sold, offered for sale, ach-ertised, delivered transported and caused to be transported, textile fiber products, which have been advertised or oftered for sale in COn1l11erce; and have sold offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be tra,nsported, after shipment in commerce, textile fiber products either in their original state or contained in other textile fiber products: as the terms "conllllerce" and "textile fiber product' are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

P..m. 3. Certain of said textile fiber products "-ere misbranded by respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification A.et. and the Rules and Heo'ulations promulgated thereunder, in that they "ere falsely and d~ceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, in,-oieed, advertised, or other"ise identified as to the name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein, Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were textile fiber products "ith labels which set forth the fiber content of quilted material contained in ski jackets as "100% Bonded Acrylic" whereas, in truth and in fact, said products contained different fibers and amolUlts of fibers. , INC. , ET AL. 311 CONGRESS SPORTSWEAR 309 Decision and Order PAR. 4. Certain of said textile fiber products were further misnot stmnped, taggedbranded bv respondents in that they were labeled or '"'otherwise identified as required under the provisions of andSection 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited labels ,,-which failed: thereto, were textile fiber products "ith generic names of the fibers present; a, 1. To disclose the true 2. To disclose the percentage of such fibers. that their PAR 5. The respondents have furnished false guaranties textile fiber products were not misbranded in violation of Section 10 of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. PAR. 6. The acts and practices of the 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 and practices in commerce, under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION AND ORDER The Federal Trade Comlnission 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 ColTl111ission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, ",youlc1 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 jurisc1ictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statelnent that the signing of said agreement is for settlement 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 acce.pted the ex- Decision and Order 73 F.

ecutecl consent agreement and placed such agreement on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days, now in further eollformity with the procedure prescribed in ~ 2. 34 (b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the follo\"ying jurisdictional findings, and enters the follo,ving order: 1. Respondent Congress Sportswear Company, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of ~Iassachusetts, with its office and principal place of business located at 135 Lincoln Street, in the city of Boston, Commonwealth of i\lassachusetts. Respondent Norman F. Grossman is an officer 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 o'/'de?' That respondents Congress Sports,,-ear Company, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Norman F. Grossman, individually and as an offieer of said corporation, and respondents' representati,- , agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other de,-ice, in connection with the introduction, delivery for introduction, manufacture for introduction, sale, advertising, Dr offering for sale, in commerce, or the transportation of causing to be transported in commerce, or the importation into the United States of textile fiber products; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, a.advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported of any textile fiber products, which have been advertised .or offered for sale in commerce; or in connection with the sale o:fi' ering for sale advertising, c1eli,'ery, transportation, or ca,using to be transported after-r shipment in commerce of any textile fiber-r products, whether 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, do fortln,ith cease and desist , from misbranding textile fiber products by 1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, invoicing, ad,-ertising or other,ise identifying such products as to the name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein. 2. Failing to affix labels to such textile fiber products showing 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.

::! ::! ::! YIVIANO J\IACARONI CO. 313 309 Complaint It is fui'thel' ordered That respondents Congress Sports\Year Company, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Norman F. Grossman individually and as an officer of said corporation, and respondents representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corpol' ate 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.

I t is fupthe?' ordered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service. upon them of this order, file .with the C0l11missiona report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and