Marriello Fabrics, Inc

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

In tre Marrer or MARRIELLO FABRICS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1705. Complaint, Mar. 10, 1970-—Decision, Mar. 10, 1970 Consent order requiring a‘ New York City manufacturer of wool and textile garments to cease misbranding its wool and textile fiber products, deceptively invoicing, falsely guaranteeing its textile fiber products, and failing: to maintain required records.

CoMPrLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1989, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Marriello Fabrics, Inc., a corporation, and Michael J. Complaint: V7 FT.C.

Marviello, individually and as an officer 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 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: Paracrarit 1. Respondent Marriello Fabrics, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. Its office and principal place of business is located at 347 West 39th Street, New York, New York. Individual respondent Michael J. Marriello is the principal officer of said corporation. He formulates, directs and controls the policies, acts, and practices of said corporation. His office and principal place of business is the same as said corporation. The respondents are manufacturers of wool and textile products which include, among other items, quilted interlining. Par. 2. Respondents are now and for some time last past have been engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction, manufacture for introduction, sale, advertising, and offering for sale, 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. Pan. 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 Regulations promulgated thereunder in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, invoiced, advertised, or otherwise identified as to the name or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were textile fiber products, namely quilted interlinings, with ‘labels on or affixed thereto which set forth fiber content as: DACRON CONTENTS-NYLON 50% ACET 50% 251 Complaint whereas, in truth and in fact, said products contained different amounts of fibers than represented.

Par. 4. Certain of the textile fiber products were 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 quilted interlinings with labels which failed: (1) To disclose the true generic names of the fibers present; and (2) To disclose the true percentage of the fibers present by weight.

Par. 5. Certain of said textile 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 the following respects: (a) In disclosing required information, words and terms were abbreviated on labels in violation of Rule 5 of the Rules and Regulations in instances other than when permitted by Rule 33(d) of the said Rules and Regulations.

(b) All parts of the required information were not conspicuously and separately set out on the same side of the label in such a manner as to be clearly legible and readily accessible to the prospective purchaser, in violation of Rule 16(b) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

Par. 6. Respondents have failed to maintain 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. 7. Respondents furnished false guaranties under Section . 10(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. with respect to certain of their textile fiber products by falsely representing in writing that respondents had a continuing guaranty on file with the Federal Trade Commission, when respondents, did not, in fact, have such a guaranty on file.

Par. 8. The acts and practices of 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 Complaint VT ¥.T.C.

and unfair and deceptive acts or practices, in commerce, under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Par. 9. 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. 10. 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 wool products namely quilted interlinings, stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified by respondents as “pDAacRON CONTENTS- NYLON 50% acer 50%,” whereas in truth and in fact, such products contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than as represented.

Par. 11. 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 quilted interlinings, with labels on or affixed thereto, which failed to disclose the percentage of the total fiber weight of the 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 wool, when said percentage by weight of such fiber was 5 per centim or more; and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers. Par. 12. The acts and practices ofthe respondents as set forth in Paragraphs Ten and Eleven 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.

Par. 13. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents MARRIELLO FABRICS, INC., ET AL. 255 251 Decision and Order now cause and for some time last past, have caused their said products, when sold, to be shipped from their place of business in the State of New York to purchasers located in various other States of the United States and maintain, and at all times mentioned herein, have maintained a substantial course of trade in said products in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Par. 14. Respondents in the course and conduct of their business, as aforesaid, have made statements on invoices and shipping memoranda to their customers misrepresenting the fiber content of their said products.

Among such misrepresentations, but not limited thereto, were statements representing the fiber content thereof as “65% Acetate Rayon, 85% Reprocessed Wool Filling,” whereas, in truth and in fact, the products contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than represented.

Par. 15. The acts and practices set out in Paragraph Fourteen have had and now have the tendency and capacity to mislead and deceive the purchasers of said poducts as to the true content thereof and were and are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and constituted, and now constitute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Decision AND Orbit 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, the Textile Fiber Products Identification 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 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 . , Order TT E.T.C.

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 § 2.34(b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent corporation is 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 347 West 39th Street, New York, New York.

Respondent Michael J. Marriello is the principal officer 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 Marriello Fabrics, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Michael J. Marriello, individually and as an officer 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 after shipment in commerce, of any textile fiber product, whether in its 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 any textile fiber product as to the name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein.

2. Failing to affix labels to each such product showing in a clear, legible and conspicuous manner each element of in- MAKRINUUU PADD, sayuey see ane _..

251 Order formation required to be disclosed by Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. 3. Setting forth words or terms on labels in disclosing required information, in abbrevaited form except as permitted by Rule 83(d) of said Rules and Regulations. 4, Failing to set out all parts of the required information conspicuously and separately on the same side of the label in such a manner as to be clearly legible and readily accessible to the prospective purchaser.

B. 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.

_ It is further ordered, That respondents Marriello Fabrics, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Michael J. Marriello, individually and as an officer of said-corporation, and the 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, It is further ordered, That respondents Marriello Fabrics, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Michael J. Marriello, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and the 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 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:

A. Misbranding wool products by:

1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, invoicing, advertising, or otherwise identifying such products as to the character or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein.

2. Failing to clearly affix 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 1989.

Complaint V7 ETC.

It is further ordered, That respondents Marriello Fabrics, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Michael J. Marriello, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the advertising, offering for sale, sale or distribution of fabrics or any other products in commerce, as “ecommerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from misrepresenting the character or amount of constituent fibers contained in such products on invoices or shipping memoranda applicable thereto, or in any other manner. 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 conmplied with this order.