Frances Novelty Co

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

IN THE MATTER OF FRANCES NOVELTY CO., INC. , TRADING AS DOMINO KNITWEAR, ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION , THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1602. Complaint, Oct. 30, 1969-Decisioll, Oct. 30, 1969 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturer of fur-trimmed ribbon knit jackets to cease misbranding, falsely invoicing and deceptively advertising its fur products, and misbranding and failing to maintain required records on its textile fiber products. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Frances Novelty Co. , Inc. , a corporation, also trading as Domino Knitwear, and Albert Bergman and Herbert Blasenstein, individually and as offcers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Fur Products Labeling 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 Frances K ovelty Co. , Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. Its offce and principal place of business is located at 535 8th Avenue, New York New York. Respondent corporation also trades as Domino Knitwear.

DOMINO KNITWEAR, ET AL. 487 486 Complaint Individual respondents Albert Bergman and Herbert BJasenstein are offcers of said corporation. They formulate, direct and control the policies, acts and practices of the corporate respondent. Their address is the same as said corporation. Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of ribbon knit jackets which are frequently trimmed with fur. PAR. 2. Respondents are now and for some time last past have been engaged in the introduction into commerce, the manufacture for introduction into commerce, and in the sale, advertising, and offering for sale in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution in commerce, of fur products; and have manufactured for sale, sold, advertised, offered for sale, transpcrted and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of furs which have been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were not labeled as required under the provisions of Section 1 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto were fur products with labels which failed; (1) To show the true animal name of the fur used in any such fur product.

(2) To show that the said fnr products contained or were composed of bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored fur, when such was the fact.

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rnles and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

(a) The term "natural" was not used on labels to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) Required item numbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rnles and Regulations. PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondent in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5 (b) (l) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations pl'mulgated thereunder. , Complaint 76 F.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products covered by invoices which failed to show that the said fur products contained or were composed of bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored fur when such was the fact.

PAR. 6. Certain of ,said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fnr Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance with Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: 1. The term "natural" was not used on invoices to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

2. Required item numbers were not set forth, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that certain advertisements intended to aid, promote and assist directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of such fur products were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 (a) of the said Act.

Among and included in the aforesaid advertisements but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in brochures having a wide circulation in the city and State of New York as well as other States of the United States. Among such false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements which failed to show that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact. PAR. 8. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 9. Respondents are now 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 advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported DOMINO KNITWEAR, ET AL. 489 486 Complaint textie fiber products, which have been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported after shipment 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 Act.

PAR. 10. Certain of the textie fiber products were misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified to show each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. Among such misbranded textie fiber products, but not 1limited thereto, were certain garments with no labels or labels which failed:

(1) To disclose the true generic names of the fibers present; and (2) To disclose the true percentage of the fibers present by weight.

PAR. 11. Respondents have failed to maintain proper records showing the fiber content of the textile fiber products manufactured by them, in violation of Section 6 (a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Rule 39 of the Regulations promulgated thereunder.

PAR. 12. The acts and practices of respondents as set forth in Paragraphs Ten and Eleven above, were, and are, in violation of the Textie Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted and now constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition 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 Commis- 490 FEDERAL TRADE CO:VIlVIISSION DECISIONS Decision and Order 76 F.

sian Act, the Fur Products Labeling Act, 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 a1l 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 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 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 Frances Novelty Co., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of New York State, with its offce and principal place of business located at 535 8th Avenue, New York, New York. Respondent corporation also trades as Domino Knitwear. Respondents Albert Bergman and Herbert Blasenstein are offcers of said corporation and their 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 It is ordered That respondents Frances Novelty Co. , Inc. , a corporation, also trading as Domino Knitwear or under any other name or names, and its offcers, and Albert Bergman and Herbert Blasenstein, individually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents ' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, or the manufacture for introduction, into commerce or the sale, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce, of any fur prod- DOMINO KNITWEAR, ET AL. 491 486 Decision and Order uct; or in connection with the manufacture for sale, sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution, of any fur product which is made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: A. Misbranding any fnr product by:

1. Failng to affx a label to such fur product showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Failing to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on a label under the Fnr Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

3. Failing to set forth on a label the item number or mark assigned to such fur product.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing any fur product by: 1. Failing to furnish an invoice, as the term "invoice is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Failing to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on an invoice under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed, or otherwise artificially colored. 3. Failing to set forth on an invoice the item number or mark assigned to such fur product.

C. Falsely or deceptively advertising any fur product through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement or notice which is intended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale, or offering for sale of any fur product, and which fails to set forth in words and Decision and Order 76 F.

figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

It is fUTthe1' m'dated That respondents Frances Novelty Co. Inc., a corporation, also trading as Domino Knitwear, and its officers, and Albert Bergman and Herbert Blasenstein, individually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, delivery for introduction, manufacture 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, 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 transported, 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 "textie fiber product" are nefined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: A. Misbranding textile fiber products by failing to affx a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification to each such product showing in a clear, legible and conspicuons manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

B. Failing to maintain and preserve for at least three years proper records showing the fiber content of the textile fiber products manufactnren by said respondents, as required by Section 6 (a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Rule 39 of the Regulations promulgated thereunder. It is further ordel' That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions.

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 setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this orner. WESTCRAFT CARPETS, INC. , ET AL. 493 493 Complaint