United Manufacturing Co

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

IN THE MATTER OF UNITED MANUFACTURING CO., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IK REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1596. Complaint, Oct. 10, 1969-Decision, Oct. 10, 1969 Consent order requiring a Marlboro, Mass., manufacturer of men s and boys wearing apparel to cease misbranding 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 United Manufacturing Co. a partnership, and Lewis B. Freedman and Jackson D. Seifer, individually and as copartners trading as United Manufacturing Co., hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the pro- Complaint 76 F.

visions 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 United Manufacturing Co. is a partnership. The said partnership is organized, exists and does business in the State of Massachusetts with its offce and principal place of business located at 36 Hudson Street, Marlboro, Massachusetts.

Individual respondents Lewis B. Freedman and Jackson D. Seifer are copartners in said partnership. They formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of said partnership. Their offce and principal place of business is the same as that of the partnership.

Respondents are engaged in the manufacturing of men s and boys' apparel.

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 Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, wool products as "wool product" is defined therein.

PAR. 3. Certain of said wool products were misbranded by 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 were certain athletic jackets which were stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified by respondents as containing " Outer Shell 90% Reprocessed Wool, 10% Other Fibers" whereas in truth and in fact said athletic jackets contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than as 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.

UNITED MANVFACTURING CO. , ET AL. 459 457 Complaint Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto were wool products, namely men s and boys' jackets, with labels on or affxed thereto, which failed to disclose the percentage of total fiber weight of said wool products, exclusive of ornamentation, not exceeding 5 per centum of said 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 aU other fibers. Also among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto, were wool products without labels. 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 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 settement 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 accepted the executed consent agreement and placed such agreement on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days, now in further Decision and Order 76 F.

conformity with the procedure prescribed in 9 2.34 (b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent United Manufacturing Co. is a partnership. The said partnership is organized, exists and does business in the State of Massachusetts. Said firm is located at 36 Hudson Street Marlboro, Massachusetts.

Respondents Lewis B. Freedman and Jackson D. Seifer are copartners in said partnership.

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 ordered That respondents United Manufacturing Co. a partnership, and Lewis B. Freedman and Jackson D. Seifer, individually and as copartners doing business as United Manufacturing Co., or under any other name, 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 fabrics or other 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 prod. ucts by :

1. Falsely or 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 placed 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 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 settng forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order. AKRON ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS AND SUPPLIES 461 101 Complaint