Shirtales by Sherma

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

In vr Marrer or BERNARDO, INC., rravine as SHIRTALES BY SHERMA, ET AM.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket C-1682. Complaint, Feb. 10, 1970—Dccision, Feb. 10, 1970 Consent order requiring a Miami, Fla., manufacturer of ladies’ sportswear to cease misbranding, falsely advertising, and deceptively guaranteeing its textile fiber products, and failing to maintain required records. 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 Bernardo, Inc., a corporation, also Complaint V7 ETC.

trading as Shirtales by Sherma, and Bernard Stone and Sherma Stone, individually and as officers 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:

Paracrari 1. Respondent Bernardo, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida. The respondent also trades as Shirtales by Sherma.

Respondents Bernard Stone and Sherma Stone are officers of the corporate respondent. They formulate, direct and control the acts and practices of the corporate respondent, including the acts and practices hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are manufacturers of textile fiber products with their office and principal place of business located at 2801 NW. 8rd Avenue, Miami, Florida.

Par, 2. Respondents are now and for some time last past have been engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction, mannfacture 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 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 respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4(a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regwla- ‘tions promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively. stamped, tagged, labeled, invoiced, advertised, or otherwise identified as to the name or amount cf constituent fibers contained therein.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were textile fiber products, namely women’s dresses, with labels which set forth the fiber content of such products as “100% SHIRTALES BY SHERMA, ET AL. 93 91 Complaint Arnel Triacetate” whereas, in truth and in fact, said products contained different amounts and types of fibers than as represented. Par. 4, Certain of said textile fiber 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(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and in the manner and form as 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 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.

Among such textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were women’s dresses advertised in brochures, distributed by respondents throughout the United States, as “T5% Rayon/25% Pure Silk” whereas, in truth and in fact, said products contained different percentages.

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 said textile fiber products were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations thereunder in the following respects : A. A fiber trademark was used in advertising textile fiber products, namely ladies’ sportswear, without a full disclosure of the fiber content information required by the said Act and the Rules and Regulations thereunder in at least one instance in said advertisement, in violation of Rule 41(a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. B. A fiber trademark was used in advertising textile fiber products, namely ladies’ sportswear, 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 94. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Decision and Order V7 E.T.C.

name of the fiber, in plainly legible and conspicuous type, in violation of Rule 41(c) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. Par. 7. Respondents have failed to maintain and preserve 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. 8. Respondents have furnished their customers with false guaranties that certain of the textile fiber products were not misbranded or falsely invoiced by falsely representing in writing on invoices that respondents have filed a continuing guaranty under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act with the Federal Trade Commission in violation of Rule 88(d) of the Rules and Regulations under said Act and Section 10(b) of such 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 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 § 2.84(b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: SHIRTALES BY SHERMA, ET AL, 95 91 Order 1. Respondent Bernardo, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida with its office and principal place of business located at 2801 NW. 8rd Avenue, in the city of Miami, State of Florida. Respondents Bernard Stone and Sherma Stone, are officers of said corporation. They formulate, direct and control the acts, policies 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 Bernardo, Inc., a corporation, also trading as Shirtales by Sherma, or by any other name or names, and its officers, and Bernard Stone and Sherma Stone, individually and as officers 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 textile fiber products; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported, of any textile fiber products. which have 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 products, whether they are 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, 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.

2. Failing to affix labels to such textile fiber products showing in a clear. legible and conspicuous manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. Order 17 BTC.

B. Falsely and deceptively advertising textile fiber products by:

1. Making any representation, directly 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 textile fiber product, unless the same information required to be shown on the stamp, tag, label or other means of identification under Section 4(b) (1) and (2) of the Textile 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. Using a fiber trademark in advertisements without a full disclosure of the required content information in at least one instance in the said advertisement. 3. Using a fiber trademark in advertising textile 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. C. Failing to maintain and preserve for at least three years proper records showing the fiber content of textile fiber products manufactured by them, as required by Section 6(a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Rule 39 of the Regulations promulgated thereunder.

ft ts further ordered, That respondents Bernardo, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Bernard Stone and Sherma Stone, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents? representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from furnishing a false guaranty that any textile fiber product is not misbranded or falsely invoiced under the provisions of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

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 cerporation, the creation or dissolution of subsidiaries or any other change in the corporation which may affect compliance obiigations arising out of the order.

lt is further ordered, That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of. its operating divisions.

BUNNIB SLYLEDS, Biv. ve 91 Complaint 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.