New Brunswick Pants Co., Inc

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

In var Marrer or NEW BRUNSWICK PANTS CO., INC., ET AL.

CONSET ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF TIE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1681. Complaint, Feb. 10, 1970—Decision, Feb. 10, 1970 Consent order requiring a New York City. manufacturer of boys’ 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 New Brunswick Pants Co., Inc., a corporation, and Larry Davidman, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and Murray Davidman, individually and as a former officer 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 com- _ plaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: Paracrapn 1. Respondent New Brunswick Pants Co., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by vir- Complaint TT FILO.

tue of the laws of the State of New York with its office and principal place of business located at 390 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York.

Respondent Larry Davidman is an officer of said corporation. Murray Davidman is a former officer of said corporation. They formulate, direct and contro] the policies, acts and practices of said corporation and their address is the same as that of the corporate respondent.

Respondents are engaged in the manufacturing of boys’ apparel. They ship and distribute such products to various customers throughout the United States.

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 boys’ jackets which were stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified by respondents as containing “90% Reprocessed Wool, 10% Other Fibers” whereas in truth and in fact said boys’ 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. , Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto were wool products, namely boys’ jackets with labels on or affixed thereto, which failed to disclose the percentage of total fiber weight ef 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 woo! when said per- NEW BRUNSWICK PANTS CO., INC., ET AL. 89 87 Decision and Order centage 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 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 the following respects : 1. Information required under Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was abbreviated on labels in violation of Rule 9(a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

2. Samples, swatches or specimens of wool products used to promote or effect sales of such wool products in commerce, were not labeled or marked to show the information required under Section 4(a)(2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in violation of Rule 22 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, wfair 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 OrnDER 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 settlement purposes only and does not constitute anadmission by respondents that the Jaw 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 hay- Order TT FLTC.

ing 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 § 2.34(b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent New Brunswick Pants Co., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its office and principal place of business located at 390 Fifth Avenue, New York. New York. _ Respondent Larry Davidman is an officer of said corporation. Murray Davidman is a former officer of said corporation. At the time of the acts, and practices hereinafter complained of, they controlled the acts, and practices of such 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 New Brunswick Pants Co.. Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Larry Davidman, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and Murray Davidman, individually and as a former officer 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 commerce. 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 Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding such products 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 affix to or place on each such product a stamp, tag, label or other means of identification showing in a clear and conspicuous manner such element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

3. Setting forth words and terms in required information SHINRVALES BY SHUNMA, Hl AL. IL 87 Complaint under Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form on labels affixed to wool products. 4, Failing to affix labels to samples, swatches or specimens of wool products used to promote or effect the sales of wool products, showing in words and figures plainly legible all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939. It is further ordered, That respondents notify the Commission at least 80 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 shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions. , ;

It is further ordered, That 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 order.