Westcraft Carpets, Inc

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

IN THE MATTER OF WESTCRAFT CARPETS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket C-1603. Complaint, Oct. 196B-Decision, Oct. 30, 1969 Consent order requiring a Denver, Colorado, dealer in carpeting to cease misbranding and falsely advertising its textile fiber products. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act 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 Westcraft Carpets Inc., a corporation, and Arnold Vagts and Dorothy Vagts, 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 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 Westcraft Carpets, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado, with its offce and principal place of business located at 2024 South Colorado Boulevard, Denver, Colorado.

Individual respondents Arnold Vagts and Dorothy Vagts are offcers of said corporate respondent. They formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of said corporate respondent, including the acts and practices hereinafter referred to. The offce and principal place of business of said individual respondents is the same as that of the corporate respondent. Respondents are engaged in the sale of carpeting. PAR. 2. Respondents are now and for some time last past have been engaged in the 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 Complaint 76 F.

States, of textile fiber products; and have sold, offered for sale advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported textile 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. 3. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by the respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a) of the Textie Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated therennder, in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, invoiced, advertised, or otherwise identified as to the name or amount of the constitnent fibers contained therein.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products, bnt not limited thereto, were textile liber products which were labeled to show the fiber content as "100% Acrilan " thereby representing the fiber content to be 100% Acrilic. In truth and in fact the said products contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than as represented.

PAR. 4. Certain of such textile fiber products were further 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 textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were textile fiber products with labels which failed. 1. To disclose the true generic names of the fibers present; and 2. To disclose the true percentage of such fibers. PAR. 5. Certain of said textile fiber products were falsely and deceptively advertised in that respondents in making disclosures or implications as to the fiber content of such textile fiber products in written advertisements used to aid, promote, and assist directly or indirectly in the sale or offering for sale of said products, failed to set forth the required information as to fiber content as specified by Section 4 (c) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. WESTCRAFT CARPETS, INC. , ET AL. 495 493 Complaint Among such textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were floor coverings which were falsely and deceptively advertised in The Denver Post " a newspaper published in the city of Denver State of Colorado, and having a wide circulation in said State and various other States of the United States, in that the said textile fiber products were advertised by means of fiber implying terms such as "Acrilans Dupont 501 Kadel " and "Herculon" without the aforesaid required information being set forth. PAR. 6. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised textile fiber products in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act in that they were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: A. In disclosing the required fiber content information as to floor coverings containing exempted backings, fillings, or paddings, such disclosure \vas not made in such a manner as to indicate that such required fiber content information related only to the face, pile or outer surface of the floor covering and not to the backing, filling, or padding, in violation of Rule II of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

B. A fiber trademark was used in advertising textile fiber products without a full disclosure of the fiber content information required, in the said advertisement, in violation of Rule 41 (a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

C. A fiber trademark was used in advertising textile fiber products containing only one fiber and such fiber trademark did not appear at least once in the said advertisement, in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fiber in plainly legible and conspicuous type, in violation of Rule 41 (c) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 7. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth above were, and are, in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constitnted, and now constitute unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices, in commerce, under 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 there- Decision and Order 76 F.

after with a copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Texties 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 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 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 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 34 (b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent Westcraft Carpets, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the State of Colorado with its offce and principal place of business located at 2024 South Colorado Boulevard, Denver, Colorado.

Respondents Arnold Vagts and Dorothy Vagts are offcers of said corporation. They formulate, direct and control the policies acts and practices of said corporation. 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 Westcraft Carpets, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and Arnold Vagts and Dorothy Vagts 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, de- WESTCRAFT CARPETS, INC. , ET AL. 497 493 Decision and Order livery for introduction, sale, advertising, or offering for sale in commerce, or the importation into the United States of any texoffering fortile fiber products; or in connection with the sale, sale, advertising, delivery, transportation or causing to be transported, of any textie 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 textie fiber products, as the terms "commerce" and "textile fiber product" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. Misbranding textie fiber products by: 1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, invoicing, advertising or otherwise identifying such products as to the name or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein.

2. Failng to affx a stamp, tag, label or other means of identification to each such product showing in a clear legible and conspicnous manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. B. Falsely and deceptively advertising textile fiber products by:

1. Making any representations, by disclosure or by implication, as to the fiber content of any textile fiber product in any written advertisement which is used to aid, promote, or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale of such textie fiber product, unless the same information required to be shown on the stamp, tag, label or other means of identification under Sections 4(b) (1) and (2) of the Textie Fiber Products Identification Act is contained in the said advertisement except that the percentages of the fibers present in the textile fiber product need not be stated. 2. Failing to set forth in disclosing the required fiber content information as to floor coverings containing exempted backings, filings, or paddings, that such disclosure relates only to the face, pile or outer surface of such textie fiber products and not to the exempted backings, fillings, or paddings.

Decision and Order 76 F.

3. Using a fiber trademark in advertising textie fiber products without a full disclosure of the required fiber content information in at least one instance in said advertisement.

4. Using a fiber trademark in advertising textie fiber products containing only one fiber without such fiber trademark appearing at least once in the advertisement in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fiber, in plainly legible and conspicuous type.

It is furthe?' o1'de?'ed That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions.

It is fu?,ther- order-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