Hancock Textile Company, Inc., et al.

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

IN THE l\IA ITER OF HANCOCI\: TEXTILE COl\iP ANY, lnc" ET AL, CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED nola TION OF THE FED- ERAL TRADE COl\fl\nSSION AND THE TEXTILE Filler PRODUCTS IDENTIFI- CATION ACTS Docket C-1328. Complaint, May 1, 1968-Decision, May 1, 1968 Consent order requiring four chain pieces goods outlets located in Alabama, ~Iissi88ippi, and Texas, to cease falsely advertising and misbranding their textile fiber products.

CO:MPh-UXT 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 Hancock Textile Compa.ny, Inc., a corporation, :Hancock Fa.bric Outlet, a corpora.tion, Ha.ncock Fa.bric Outlet, Inc" a, corporation, and Hancock Textile. Outlet, a, corporation and La,wrence D. I-Ianeock and Robert E. Tedford, individually and as officers of said corporations, hereinafter referred to as respondents ha\'e violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and R.regula, tions promulgated under the Textile Fiber Products Identifieation Act., and it appe~ring to the C0111mission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof ,yould be in the public inte.rest, hereby issues its compl aint stating its charges in that respect as follows: , , HA~COCK TEXTILE CO., INC. , ET AL. 797 796 .complain t lRAGRAPH 1. Respondent 1-Iancoch: Textile Company, Inc. , 1S corporation organized, exi~ting and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of l\iississippi, with its principal office and place of business loc.ated at Highway 6 ,Vest, Tupelo, J\tIississippi. Respondent Hancock Fabric Outlet is a corporation organized, existing and. doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of ~iississippi, with its principal office and place of business 10c.atec1 at High"ay 6 ,Yest, Tupelo, ~1ississippi. Respondent Hancoc.k Fabric Outlet, Inc" is a corporation organized existing and doing business under' and by virtue of the laws of the State of Alabama, with its prineiprJ office and place of business located at 850 Government Street, 2Uobile, Alabama. Respondent I-Ianeock Te,xtile Outlet is a corporation organized . existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas, \\"ith its principal OTI1ee and place of business located at G2-!O Bissonet Street, I-Iouston, Texas. Individual respondents Lawrence D. I-Ianeock and Robert E, Tedford are offcers of each of the foregoing corporate respondents, The office and principal place of business of these llldividual respondents is IIiglnnlY 6 T'i~ est, Tupelo, l\iississippi. The inc1ii"iclua.I respondents operate r~ chain of 20 retail piece goods outlets including the corporate respondents named above and they are responsible. for the acts, practices and policies of said piece goods outlets, Although each of the 20 retail piece goods outlets is separately incorpol'antec1 ",within the. State in which they do business, they are operated as n chain \'":ith headquarters at I-lighway 6 "'Vest, Tupelo, J\Iississippi frolll '" hic.h emanates much of the advertising for the individual units.

PAR, 2, Respondents are 110\\-, and for some time last past have been engaged in the llltroc1action, delivery for introduction, sale, advertising:. and otIel'in,Q,' lor sale. in COlllllleree, and in the, tl'ansnol'tation or causing!:!.' to be tla11s1jortec1 ill commerce. and in the inl Jortation into the United State;::. of textile fiber products; and have sold, offered for sale, aclnTtisec1 , cleJi,-ered, transported and caused to be transported textile i1bel' products, "which have been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, deliv0red, transported and caused to be transported, after shipment III commerce, textile fiber products, either in their original state or contained in other textile fiber products: as the terms "comnlerce" and ';textile fiber product" are deJinecl in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

, ,, 798 FEDERAL TRADE COl\iIMISSION DECISIONS, ,Complaint 73 F.

\R. 3, Certain of sa.id 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 "'ere falsely and deceptively stamped, , tagged, labeled, invoiced, advertised, or otherwise identified as to the name or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein, Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but l~ot limited thereto ",ere textile fiber products which "-ere falsely and deceptively advertised in the "Daily Journal" a newspaper published in Tupelo ~lississippi, the "~Iobile Press Register:' a ne,wspaper published in :Mobile, Alabama and the "Houston Chroniele" a newspaper published in I-Iouston, Texas. These newspapers hate interstate circulation, and certain of said advertisements contained such terms as "linen type wern- e;' " linen type candy linen " and "print linens which represented directly or by implication that such products were composed of linen fibers ,,-hen such was not the ease. \R. 4. Certain of such textile fiber products were further misbranded by respondents in that they "'ere not sta, mpecl, 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 fonll prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

\among such misbranded. textile fiber products, but not. limited thereto ere textile fiber products with )labels "hieh failed: 1. To disclose the true gcllcrie names of the fibers present; and 2. To disclose the true percentage of such fibers; and 3. To disclose the name, 01' other identification issued and registered by the Commission, of the manufacture.r of the product or one or more persons subject to Section 3 of the said ...let, with respect to such product.

\..lso among: such misbranded textile fibpr products ,were remnants ,yhieh 'were l Ot labeled or other"ise identified as to fiber content. \R. 5. Certain of said textile fiber products "'ere lilisbranc1ecl 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 follo\ying respects: (a) Fiber trademarks appeared on hbeb ,without the generic names 17 (a)of the fibers appearing on such labels, in violation of Rule the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

HANCOCK TEXTILE CO. , INC. , ET AL. 799 796 Complaint (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, -\R, 6, Certain of said textile fiber products ,,-ere falsely and dece, tively advertised in that respondents in making disclosures or implieations as to the fiber content of such textile fiber products in written advertisements used to aid, promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale or oflering for sale of said products failed to set forth the required information as to fiber content as specified by Section 4 ( e) the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and in the ma11l1er and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act, Among the aforesaid advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the "Daily Journal " the ":Mobile Pre,ss Register " and "The Houston Post ne"\yspapers having interstate circulation, in which textile fabrics were advertised with such fiber implying terms as corduroy, dacron antique satin, and broaclc.loth among others but not limited thereto ,vithout the true generic names of the fibers in such articles being 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 pro duets in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act in that said textile fiber products were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations the.reunc1er 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 the said Act, and the Rules and Regulations thereunder in at least one instance in said advertisement, in violation of Rule 41 (a) of the aforesaiel Rules and Regulations.

(b) Fiber trademarks ,were used in advertising textile fiber products containing more than one fiber, other than permissive ornamentntion and such fiber content trademarks did not appear 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 eonspicuousness, in violation of Rule 41 (b) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

\R, 8. The ads and practices of respondents, as set forth above, were and are, in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the R1l1es anel Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, anclnOlv constitute unfair methods of competition and unfair , , , ,, .

800 FEDERAL TRADE CO::\IMISSION DECISIONS Decision and Order 73 F.

and dece,ptive acts or practices, in commerce, under the Federal Trade Conllnission Act, DECISION ~~ND ORDER The Federal Trade Commission 11a ving 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 dr~ft of complaint which the Bureau of Te:s:tiles and Furs proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which if issued by the Commission ould 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 pcgreement 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 R.ules; and The Comlnission having thereafter considered the matter and having determined that. it had reason to believe that the responde.nts have violated the said Acts, and that compln,int should issue stating its charge,s in that respect, ~nd having thereupon accepted the executed consent agreement and placed such agreement on the public record for a period or thirty (30) days, now in further conformity with the 34 (b) of its Rules, the COlnmissioll herebyprocedure prescribed in S 2. issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent I--Ianeock Textile Company, Inc., is ::t corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws or the State or =,Iississippi, with its office and principal place of business located at Rig-Inlay 6 \Vest, Tupelo, ~:Iississippi, Respondent 11ancock Fabric. Outlet is a corporation organized e:s:istin9' and doing business under and bv virtue of the la ,vs of the State of l\Iississippi, with its ofikB and principal place of bu::iness located at Higln,ay 6 \Vest, Tupelo, lvlississi ppi, Respondent I-Iancock Fabric. Outlet, Inc., is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by yil'tr:. of the 1a \'\13 of the State of ~llabama, \,ith its ofHco and principal place of business located at 850 GoH' rnment Street Iobile, Alabama.

HANCOCK TEXTILE CO" INC" ET AL. 801 796 Decision and Order Respondent Hancock Textile Outlet is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and bv virtue of the laws of the State of Texas, with its office and principal place or business located at 6240 Bissonet Street, I-Iouston, Texas, Respondents Lawrenc.e D, I-Iancock and Robert E, Tedford are officers of saiel corporations and their address is Highway 6 \Yest Tupelo, :Mississippi, 2. The. Federal Trade Conlmission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is O1ylei'ed That respondents Hancock Textile Con1pany, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, Hancock Fabric Outlet, a corporation and its oftlcers, Hancock Fabric Outlet, Inc" a corporation, and its officers, I-Ianeock Textile Outlet, a corporation, and its officers, and Lawrence D, I-Iancock and Hobert E, Tedford. individuallv and as officers of said corporations, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, 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 importation into the linited 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 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 trallspol'ted, 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:

)..., l\Iisbranding 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. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, invoicing, advertising or otherwise, identifying such products b~' representing either, directly or by implication, through the use of such terms as "candy linen print linen '~ and , 802 FEDERAL TRADE COMl\HSSION DECISIONS Decision and Order 73 F.

linen type weaves" or any other terms, that any fibers are present in a textile fiber product when such is not the case, 3. Failing to affix 1labels 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, 4. lising a fiber trademark on labels affixed to such textile fiber products without the generic name of the fiber appearing on such label.

5. Using a generic. name or fiber trademark on any label whetlher required or non-required, without making a full and complete fiber content disclosure in aeeordance with the, Act and the Rules and Regulations thereunder the first time such generic name or fiber trademark appears on the label. B. Falsely and deceptively advertising textile fiber products by: 1. l\Iaking any representations, directly or by implication as to the fiber content of anv textile fiber Droduet 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 sho,vn on the stamp, tag~ or label or other means of identifieation under Section 4(b) (1) and (2) of the Textile is contained in the. said Fiber Products Identification ~L\..ct 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, losing a. fiber trademark in advertisements ,vithout. a full disclosure of the required content information in at least one instance in the said ad yertisement. 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 conspieuousness.

tis fu i'their' or'deT'ed That the respondent corpol~ations shall forthwith distribute a copy of this Order to each of their operating di,-isions. It is fwrthe1' oi'CleJ' That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) clays after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a. reliort in writing setting forth in detail the mamler and form in which .they have complied with this order, , ) . A & A TRAVEL EDREA 803 Complaint