Mister Mel of California

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

manner and form in which they have complied with this order. I;\ THE MATTER OF MISTER MEL OF CALIFORI\IA, 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-1604. Compla,int, Oct. 30, 1969-Decision, Oct. 30, 1969 Consent order requiring a Los Angeles, Calif., manufacturer of women s and misses' apparel to cease misbranding its textie fiber products. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and by virtne of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Mister :.el of California, a corporation, and Mel Dreyfuss, individually and as an offcer 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 MISTER MEL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. 499 498 Complaint 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 Mister Mel of California is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California.

Respondent Mel Dreyfuss is the principal offcer of said corporation. He formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies of said corporate respondent.

Respondents are engaged in the manufacture and sale of textile fiber products, including women s and misses' apparel with their principal place of business located at 714 South Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, California.

PAR. 2. Respondents are now and for some time last past have been engaged in the introdnction, 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 textile fiber products which had 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 Hcommerce and "textile fiber products" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

PAR. 3. Certain 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 amounts of the constituent fibers contained therein.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were garments with dual labels showing confiicting amounts of constituent fibers therein. One example is a garment with a stitch-in label showing the fiber content to be " 100% Arnel Triacetate" and a hang tag showing the fiber content to be 85% Arnel Triacetate 15% Nylon.

PAR. 4. Certain of the textile fiber products were misbranded by the respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified to show each element of information re- Complaint 76 F.

quired 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 were garments which were not JabeJed to show that they were imported and the name of the country where they were processed or manufactured. PAR. 5. Certain of said textie fiber products were misbranded in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that non-required information was set forth on labels in such a manner as to interfere with minimize, detract from, and conflict with information required by Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and in violation of Rule 16(c) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. PAR. 6. 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 constituted, 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 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 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 MISTER MEL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. 501 498 Decision and Order 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 Mister Mel of California is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of California, with its offce and principal place of business located at 714 South Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, California. Respondent Mel Dreyfuss is the principal offcer of said corporation and his 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 Mister Me1 of California, a corporation; and its offcers, and Mel Dreyfuss, individually and as an offcer 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 textie fiber product, whether in its original state or contained in other textile fiber products, as the terms "commerce" and "textie fiber product" are defined in the Textile Products Identification Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: A. Misbranding textile fiber products by: 1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, invoicing, advertising, or otherwise identifying such products as to the name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein.