Fox River Mills, Inc.

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

IN THE ~L~ITER OF FOX RIVER ~fills, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , Ii-T REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COl\Il\IISSION, THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING, AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket 0-1346. ColnjJla,int, June 7, 1968-Decision, JU/ne, 1968 Consent order requiring an Appleton, Wisconsin, sock manufacturer to cease misbranding its wool and textile fiber products and furnishing false guarantees.

COl\IPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act the vV 001 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 Fox River ~iills, Inc., a corporation, and Joseph R. Lessard, indi- FOX RIVER MILLS , INC. , ET AL. 1021 1020 Complaint vidually and as an ofi1cer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the ,V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and 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 Fox River :Mills, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing busine.ss under and by virtue of thela ws of the State of ,Visconsin. Its office and principal place of business is located at 808 ,Yisconsin A venue, Appleton, \Yisconsin. Individual respondent .J oseph R,. Lessard is an officeI' of said corporation. He formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies of the said corporation, His office and principal place of business is the same as that of said corporation.

The respondents manufacture and sell socks composed, in some instances, in whole or in part of woolen fibers; in other instances, of fibers or combinations of fibers other than wool. 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 said ,y 001 Products Labeling ...'-\ct of 1939 , \';001 products as "wool product" is defined therein.

PAR. 3. Certain of said wool products "-ere misbranded by the respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a) (1) of the ,Y 001 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 constituent fibers contained therein. Among such misbranded wool procluets, but not limited thereto, \fere socks stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified by respondents as "85% ,Yool, 15% Nylon except 2% Nylon Reinforced Heel and Toe 50% ,Yool, 25% Rayon, 15% Cotton, 10% Nylon " whereas in truth and in fact, such products contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than as represented.

PAR. 4. Certain of said wool products ,,-ere further misbranded by respondents in that the.y "ere not stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified m; required under the provisions of Section 4 (a) (2) of the 'V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. 1022 FEDERAL 'TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS 'Complaint 73 F.

Among such misbranded wool products, but. not limited thereto, were wool products, viz, socks, with labels 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 c.entmll or more and (5) the aggregate. of all other fibers.

PAR. 5. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth above were, and are, in violation of the 'V 001 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 eOlrunerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. PAR. 6. Respondents are no"', 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 in the importation into the United States of textile fiber products; and have sold, offered for sale, acb-ertised, deli vered, transported and ea used to be transported, textile fiber products, which have been advertised or otYered for sale in commerce: and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, after shi pl1lent 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 Ad.

PAR. I. 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 otherwise identified as to the name or amount of the fibers contained therein. Among such textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were textile fiber products, viz, socks. labeled by respondents as "80% Orion 20% Nylon " whereas, in truth and in fact, such socks contained substantially different. amounts of fibers than as represented. PAR. 8. Certain of said textile fiber products "ere 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 Regulations promulgated under said Act.

, .

FOX RIVER MILLS, INC. , ET AL. 1023 1020 Complaint Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not lunited there- , were textile fiber products~ viz, soeks, with labels which failed: (a) To disdose the true generic. names of the fibers present; and (b) To disclose the true percentages of the fibers present by weight. PAR. 9. The acts and practices of respondents, as set forth in Paragraph Seven and Eight 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 andlUlfair and deceptive acts or practices, in commerce, under the Federal Trade Commission Act. \.R. 10. Respondents are now, and for some time last past have been, engaged in the offering for sale, sale and distribution of socks to jobbers a.nd retailers for resale to the purchasing public. PAR. 11. In the course and conduct of their aforesaid business, respondents now cause, and for some time last past have caused, their said articles of merchandise when sold, to be shipped from their place of business in the State of 'Yisconsin to purchasers thereof located in YHrious other States of the United States, and maintain, and at all times mentioned herein have maintained. H substantial course of trade in said products in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

\R. 12. In the course and conduct of their business as aforesaid and for the purpose of inducing the sale of said articles of merchalldise respondents have made certain statements and representations with respect thereto, ",hi('h statements and representations are imprinte. d on transparent plastic bags encasing some of sa ic1 n articles of merchandise. Typical and illustrative thereof, but not all inelusiYe~ are such statements as ;'rxcoxDlTIOXALLY GFAR.\XTEED " and others of similar import. and meaning.

\R. 13. By and through the use of said statements, and others of similar import not specifically set out herein~ respondents' represented, directly or by implication, that the respondents' articles of ll1erehandise .were unconditionally guaranteed. PAR. 14. In truth and in fact the respondents' guarantee was not unconditional and the guarantor failed to set forth the nature and extent of the guarantee, and the manner in which the guarantor would perform. Therefore, the statements and representations set forth in Paragraph Twelve ",ere and are false lnisleading and deceptive. PAR. Ii'). In the conduct of their business at all times mentioned here- , respondents have been in substantial competition, in commerce, ",ith corporations, firms and individuals in the sale of articles of merchandise of the same general kind and nature as those sold by respondents. Decision and Order 73 F. T. PAR. 16. The use by respondents of the aforesaid false, 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 were and are true and into the purchase of substantial quantities of respondents' articles of merchandise by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief.

,m. 17. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as set forth in Paragraphs Twelve through Sixteen inclusive, were and are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents' competitors and constituted, and now constitute, unfair methods of competition in commerce and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce in violation of Section 5 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 Tracie Commission .L'-l.ct., the ,Y 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Textile Fiber Products Identification ltct.; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an aflTeement 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 saiel 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 CommissionRules;The COn1l11ission having thereafterandconsidered 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 prescribp.c1 in 82, 34 (b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

FOX RIVER MILLS, INC. , ET AL. 1025 1020 Decision ancl Orcler 1. Respondent Fox River ~iills, Inc., is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws or the State of vVisconsin, with its office and principal place of business located at 808 ,Visconsin A venue, Appleton, ,Visconsin. Respondent Joseph R. Lessard is an officer of said corporation and his address is the same as that of said corporation. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction Or the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER tis o?Yle1' That respondents Fox R,iver :Mills, Inc., a corporation and its officers, and Joseph E. Lessard, individually arid as an officer . of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the manufacture for introduction into commerce, the introduction into commerce, or the offering for sale, sale, transportation distribution, delivery for shipment or shipment in commerce, or wool products, as "commerce" and ""\\001 product" are defined in the ,y 001 Products Labeling Act or 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding such products by:

1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, or otherwise identifying such products as to the character or amount of constituent fibers included therein.

2. Failing to securely affix to, or place on, each such product a stamp, tag, label or other means or jc1eDtification showing in fl, clear and conspicuous manner each element of inrormation required to be disclosed by Section 4 (a) (2) or the, ,y 001 Products La,beling Act of 1939.

t is f1l1'their' ordrTecl That respondents Fox River l\1:ills, Inc. , a corporation, and its officers, and Joseph R. Lessard, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and respondents' represel1tative~, 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 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, trallsportation, 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 1026 FEDERAL TRADE COM1HSSION DECISIONS Sylla bus 73 F. T, 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 ...let, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding textile fiber products by: 1. Falsely 01' c1ecepti,"ely stamping, tagging, labeling, inyoieing, advertising, or otherwise identifying such products as to the name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein. 2. Failing to affix labels to such products showing each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

It is .ht1'thej' onlered That respondents Fox River ~iills, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Joseph R. Lessard, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in cOlmection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of textile products in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from representing, directly or by implication, that any of respondents' products are guaranteed unless the nature. and extent of the guarantee, the identity of the guarantor, and the manner in which the guarantor will perform thereunder are clearly and conspicuously disclosed. It is fill'thej' o')'(le1'ed That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this Order to each of its operating c1iyisions. I t is fu1'thel' O'J'de1'ed 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.