Silfka Fabrics

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

IN THE MATTER OF SLIFKA FABRICS, ET AL, CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1550. Complaint, July 19B9-Decision, July 2, 1969 Consent order requiring a New York City converter and importer of fabrics to cease misbranding and falsely invoicing its wool products. 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 Slifka Fabrics, a partnership, and Joseph Slifka and Sylvia Slifka, individually and as copartners trading as Slifka Fabrics, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Wool 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:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Slifka Fabrics is a partnership with its offce and principal place of business located at 469 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York.

Joseph Slifka and Sylvia Slifka are individuals and copartners trading as Slifka Fabrics. Their address is the same as that of the said partnership.

Respondents are converters and importers of fabrics. PAR. 2. Respondents, now and for some time last past, have in- Complaint 76 F.

troduced 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 product" is defined therein. PAR. 3. 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 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 products but not limited thereto was a wool product stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified by respondents as "70 % Reprocessed Wool, 15 % Fur Fibers 10% Nylon, 5'i Other Fibers " whereas, in truth and in fact said products contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers 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 affxed 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. 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. PAR. 6. Respondents are now and for some time last past have been engaged in the offering for sale, sale and distribution of certain products, namely woolen fabrics. In the course and conduct of their business the aforesaid respondents now cause and for some time last past have caused, their said products, when sold SLIFKA FABRICS, ET AL.

Complaint to be shipped from their place of business in New York to purchasers located in various other 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. 7. Respondents in the course and conduct of their business have made statements on invoices to their customers, misrepresenting the fiber content of certain of their products. Among such misrepresentations, but not limited thereto, were statements made on invoices representing the fiber content thereof as "70% Reprocessed Wool 150/ Fur Fibers 100/ Nylon 5 % Other Fibers" whereas, in truth and in fact, the products contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than represented.

PAR. 8. The acts and practices set out in Paragraph Seven have the tendency and capacity to mislead and deceive the purchasers of said products as- to the true content thereof. PAR. 9. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged were, and are, all to the prejudice and injury of the public, and constituted, and now constitute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, within the intent and 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 Commjssion s Rules; and The Commission having thereafter considered the matter and FEDERAL TRADE CO!VMISSION DECISIONS Decision and Order 76 F.

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 following order: 1. Respondent Slifka Fabrics is a partnership with its offce and principal place of business located at 469 Seventh A venue New York, :-ew York.

Respondents Joseph Slifka and Sylvia Slifka are individuals and copartners trading as Slifka Fabrics and their address is the same as that of said partnership.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subj ect matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is orde?' That respondents Slifka Fabrics, a partnership, and Joseph Slifka and Sylvia Slifka, individually and as copartners trading as Slifka Fabrics, or under any other name or names, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, into commerce, or the offering for sale sale, transportation, distribution, delivery for shipment or shipment, in commerce, of wool products, as ucommerce " 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 affx 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 Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

It is JUTtheT o?'dered That respondents Slifka Fabrics, a partnership, and ,Joseph Slifka and Sylvia Slifka, individually and as SLIFKA FABRICS, ET AL.

Decision and Order copartners trading as Slifka Fabrics, or under any other name or names, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale, sale or distribution of wool products, or other products in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from misrepresenting the character or amount of the constituent fibers contained in such products, on invoices or shipping memoranda applicable thereto or in any other manner. It is further ordered, That the respondents herein shah, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing settng forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order.