Jay Hart Originals

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

In roe Matrer or JACK A. HARTLEY rTraprve as JAY HART ORIGINALS, ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF TUIE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket C-1716. Complaint, Mar. 26, 1970—Decision, Mar. 26, 1970 Consent order requiring a Miami, Fla., manufacturer of women’s and misses’ dresses and swimwear to cease misbranding and falsely guaranteeing his textile fiber products and failing to maintain required fiber content 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 Jack A. Hartley, individually and trading as Jay Hart Originals, also trading as Jay Hart, Jaykini, and JE H, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has 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:

Paracrapy 1. Respondent Jack A. Hartley is an individual trading as Jay Hart Originals, with his office and principal place of business located at 675 NW. 29th Street, Miami, Florida. Respondent also has offices located at 670 West 20th Street, Hialeah, Florida. Respondent also trades as Jay Hart, J aykini and JH. Respondent is engaged in the’ manufacture of women’s and misses’ dresses and swimwear.

Par. 2. Respondent is now and for some time last past has been engaged in the introduction, 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 has 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 has sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused JAY HART ORIGINALS, ET AL. 327 326 Complaint 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 textile fiber products were misbranded by respondent 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 ladies’ dresses with labels stating “100% Cotton,” thereby representing the said dresses to be composed entirely of cotton, whereas, in truth and in fact, such products contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than as represented. Pan. 4. Certain of the textile fiber products were misbranded by the respondent 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 products were garments with labels which failed :

1. To disclose the true generic names of the fibers present; and 2. To disclose the true percentages of such fibers. Par. 5. Respondent has failed to maintain and preserve proper records showing the fiber content of the textile fiber products manufactured by him, in violation of Section 6(a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Rule 39 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Par. 6. The respondent has furnished false guaranties that his textile fiber products were not misbranded by falsely representing in writing that respondent had filed a continuing guaranty under the Textile Fiber Product Identification Act with the Federal Trade Commission, when such was not the fact, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Rule 38(d) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. Pan. 7. The acts and practices of the respondent as set forth above were and are in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, Decision and Order V7 F.T.C.

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 respondent named in the caption hereof, and the respondent 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 respondent with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act; and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement 2sontaining a consent order, an admission by the respondent 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 respondent 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 respondent has 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 Jack A. Hartley is an individual trading as Jay Hart Originals, with his office and principal place of business located at 675 NW. 29th Street, Miami, Florida. Respondent also has offices located at 670 West 20th Street, Hialeah, Florida. Respondent also trades as Jay Hart, Jaykini and JH.

Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of women’s and misses’ dresses and swimwear.

2. The Federal Trace Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent and the proceeding is in the public interest.

JAY HART ORIGINALS, ET AL. 329 326 Order ORDER It is ordered, That respondent Jack A. Hartley, individually and trading as Jay Hart Originals, also trading as Jay Hart, Jaykini and JH, or trading under any other name or names, and respondent’s 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 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 such products as to the name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein.

2. Failing to affix a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification to each such product 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.

B. Failing to maintain and preserve proper records showing the fiber content of textile fiber products manufactured by him, as required by Section 6(a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Rule 39 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

It is further ordered, That respondent Jack A. Hartley, individually and trading as Jay Hart Originals, also trading as Jay Hart, Jaykini and JH, or trading under any other name or names, and respondent’s representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from furnishing false guaranties that textile fiber products axe not mis- Complaint 77 E.T.C.

branded or falsely or deceptively invoiced or advertised under the provisions of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. It is further ordered, That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon him of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he complied with this order.