Davis Sportswear Co. Division et al.

Text (OCR of the scan; may contain errors)

COMPLAINT

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 Jonathan Logan, Inc., a corporation, trading as Davis Sportswear Company Division, and David W. Goren, individually and as general manager of said Division, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Woo] 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 in that respect as follows Paragrary 1. Respondent Jonathan Logan, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware. Respondent Jonathan Logan, Inc., trades, among others, under the name of Davis Sportswear Company Division.

Respondent David W. Goren is the general manager of the Davis Sportswear Company Division of Jonathan Logan, Inc. He directs the acts and practices of said Division, including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are engaged in the manufacture and sale of wool products, including women’s benchwarmers and storm coats, with the office and principal place of business of respondent Jonathan Logan, Inc., located at 3901 Liberty Avenue, North Bergen, New Jersey. The office and principal place of business of respondent David W. Goren, general manager of Davis Sportswear Company Division is located at 4 Hampshire Street, Lawrence, Massachusetts.

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 products” is defined therein.

Par, 8. 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 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 constituent fibers contained therein. Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto, were ladies’ coats stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified by respondents as 85 percent Wool, and 15 percent Nylon, whereas in truth and in fact, said products contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fiber than represented.

Par. 4. Certain of said wool 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(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 affixed thereto which failed to disclose the percentage of the total fiber weight of the said wool product, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5 per centum of the 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 have furnished false guaranties that their wool products were not misbranded 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 or practices, in commerce within the meaning of 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, 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 respondents that the law has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and other provisions as required by the Commissicn’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 § 2.34(b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Jonathan Logan, Inc., trading as Davis Sportswear Company Division, is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, vith its office and principal place of business located at 3901 Liberty Avenue, North Bergen, New Jersey.

Respondent David W. Goren is general manager of Davis Sportswear Company Division of Jonathan Logan, with his office and principal place of business located at + Hampshire Street, Lawrence, Massachusetts.

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 ts ordered, That respondents Jonathan Logan, Inc., a corporation, trading as Davis Sportswear Company Division, or under any other name, and its officers, and David W. Goren, individually and as general manager of Davis Sportswear Company Division, 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:

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 affix to, or place on, each such 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 4(a) (2) of the 1Yool Products Labeling Act of 1939.That Jonathan Logan, Inc. , a corporation 1 t is furthe'J' o7'de'J' trading as Davis .sportswear Company Division, or under any other 11ame, and its officers, and David,V. Goren, individually and re-general manager of Davis Sportswear Company Division, and:spondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from furnishing a false guaranty that any \\001 product is not misbranded under the vV 001 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 commerce.

It is further ordel'ed That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions. It is furthe'l' orde'J' That the respondents herein shall, within sixty

(60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in,yriting setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order.

IN THE 1\1.tI.TTER OF

E. 1-1. TEASLEY & CO., INC., ET AL.

CONSENT onDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION

OF THE FEDERAL TRADE C03IMISSION ACT

May 16, 1968 Docket C-l:337. Complaint, May 16, 1968-Decision Consent order requiring a Dallas, Texas, manufacturer of tents, tarpaulins and other product.s to cease fictitiously pricing its merchandise in catalogs::md furnishing retailers with means of deceptive pricing.

C03IPLAINT

Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal believe that E. H. Teasley & Trade Commission, ha.ving reason to Co., Inc., a corporation, and Eugene H. Teasley, individually and as an officer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents have violated the provisions of said Act, and it aP'pearing 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 E. 1-1. Teasley & Co. , Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas, with its principal office and place of business located at 509 Corinth, Dallas, Texas. Respondent Eugene H. Te.asley is an officer of said corporation. He formulates, directs and controls the acts and practices of the corporate respondent, including the acts and practices hereinafter set forth. His business address is the same as that of the corporate respondent.

PAR. 2. Respondents are now, and for some time last past have been engaged in the manufacture, advertising, o:ffe.ring for sale, sale and distribution of tents, tarpaulins and other merchandise to retailers for resale to the public.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents now cause, and for some time last past have caused, said products hen sold, to be shipped from their place of business in the State of Texas to retailers thereof located in various States of the United States and maintain, and at all times mentioned herein have maintained, a substantial course of trade in said products in commerce, as commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 4. Respondents, for the purpose of inducing the purchase of their products, have engaged in the practice of using fictitious prices in connection therewith by the following method and means: By distributing, or causing to be distributed to retailers and others catalogs which depict and describe their aforesaid products and contain a stated price for each.

In the manner aforesaid respondents thereby repl'esent, directly or indirectly, that the amounts shown are respondents' bona fide estimate of the actual retail prices of said products in respondents' trade area and that they do not appreciably exceed the highest prices at which substantial sales of said products are made at retail in said trade area. In truth and in fact said amounts shown are not respondents' bona fide estimate of the actual retail prices of said products in respondents trade area and they appreciably exceed the highest prices at which substantial sa.les of said products are made at retail in said trade. area. Therefore, the statements and representations set forth above are false., Inisleac1ing -and deceptive.

PAR. 5. By the aforesaid acts and practices, respondents place in the hands of retailers the means and instrumentalities by and through which they may mislead the public as to the usual and regular retail price of said products.

PAR. 6. In the course and conduct of their business and at all times mentioned herein, respondents have been engaged in substantial competition, in commerce, with corporations, firms and individuals in the sale of products of the same general kind and nature as those sold by respondents.

PAR. 7. The use by the respondents of the aforesaid fa.lse, misleading and deceptive statements, representations and practices, has had, and now has, the capacity and tendency to mislead members of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said statements and representations ",-ere and are true and into the purchase of substantial quantities of respondents' products by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief.

PAR. 8. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, were and are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents competitors and constituted, and nOYf constitute, unfair methods of competition in commerce and unfair and deceptive. acts and practices in commerce, in violation of Section;) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION .:\ND ORDER

The Federal Trade Commission 11a,-ing initiated an iln~estigation of certain acts and practices of the respondents named in the caption hereof nc1 the respondents having been furnished thereafter,vith a copy or a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Decepti,-e Practices pl'oposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued b~- the Commjssion ould charge respondents \\-ith violation of the Federal Trade Commission 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 settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the 1ft" 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 Act, and that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, and ha.ving thereupon accepted the exeellted c.onsent agreement and placed such agreement on the public record for a period of thirty (80) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in § 2.84(b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent E. H. Teasley & Co., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas, with its office and principal place of business located at 509 Corinth, Dallas, Texas.

Respondent Eugene H. Teasley 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

li is ordered, That respondents, E. H. Teasley & Co., Ine., a corporation, and its officers, and Eugene H. Teasley, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and respondents’ agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the advertising, offering for sale, sale or distribution of tents, tarpaulins or other merchandise, in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Advertising, disseminating or distributing any purported retail price unless (a) it is respondents’ bona fide estimate of the actual retail price of the product in the area where respondents do business and (b) it does not appreciably exceed the highest. price at which substantial sales of said product are made in said trade area,

2. Misrepresenting in any manner the prices at which respondents’ merchandise is sold at retail.

5. Furnishing to others any means or instrumentalities whereby the purchasing public may be misled as to the retail prices of respondents’ products. lt is further ordered, That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating clivisions. It ts 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. 418-845—72- 60, .