Men'S Wear, Inc

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

IN THE MATTER OF MEN' S WEAR, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IK REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1632. Complaint, Nov. 17, 969-Decision, Nov. 17, 1969 Consent order requiring a Seattle, \Vash., manufacturer of men s and boys clothing to cease misbranding its \\,.001 products. Complaint 76 F.

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 Men s Wear, Inc., a corporation, and Benjamin H. Genauer and Sheldon P. Steinberg, 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 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 Men s Wear, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington.

Individual respondents Benjamin H. Genauer and Sheldon P. Steinberg are offcers of said corporation. They formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of said corporation, including the acts and practices hereinafter referred to. Respondents are engaged in the manufacturing of men s and boys' apparel1. Their offce and principal place of business is located at 1103 Post Street, Seattle, Washington. 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 the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, wool products as "wool product" is defined therein.

PAR. 3. Certain of said wool products were misbranded 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 wool products, namely jackets, stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified as containing 100% Virgin Wool, whereas in truth and in fact, such jackets contained substantiany different amounts and types of fibers than as represented. MEN S WEAR, INC. , ET AL. 641 639 Complaint 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 were certain wool products, namely jackets, with labels on or affixed thereto which failed to disclose the percentage of the total fiber weight of the wool product, 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 all other fibers. PAR. 5. Certain of said wool products, namely jackets, were misbranded in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that, in disclosing the required information, words or terms were abbreviated in violation of Rule 9 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 Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 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 Commission Act and the W 601 Products Labeling Act of 1939; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent Orclel", an admission by the respondents of all the jurisdiction&l facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the sign- Decision and Order 76 F.

ing 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 \vaivers 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 Men s Wear, Inc., is a coporation organized . existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington, with its office and principal place of business located at H03 Post Street, Seattle, Washington. Respondents Benjamin H. Gemmer and Sheldon P. Steinberg are offcers of said corporation. They formulate, direct and control the policies, acts and practices 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 :\'len s Wear, Inc. , a corporation, and its offcers, and Benjamin H. Genauer and Sheldon P. Steinberg, 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 manufacture for introduction, into comnlerce, or the offering for sale, sale, transportation, distribution, delivery for shipment or shipment, in commerce, of wool products, as commerce" and "wool product" are defined in the \Vool Products Labeling Act of 1939 , do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding such products by:

1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, labeling, or otherwise identifying such products as to the character or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. MEN S WEAR INC. , ET AL. 643 639 Decision and Order 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.

3. Setting forth information required under Section 4 (a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form on labels affxed to wool products.

It is further ordel' That respondents notify the Commission at least 30 days prior to any proposed change in the corporate respondent such as dissolution, assignment or sale resulting in the emergence of a successor corporation, the creation or dissolution of subsidiaries or any other change in the corporation which may affect compliance obligations arising out of the order. It is further ordered That the respondent corporation shan forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions.

It is fUTtheT ordered That respondents herein shan, 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 order,