Carolina Hosiery Mills, Inc

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

In ror Marrer or CAROLINA HOSIERY MILLS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ELC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL.TRADE COMMISSION ACT Docket C-1746. Complaint, May 28, 1970—-Decision, May 28, 1970 Consent order requiring a Burlington, N.C., manufacturer and distributor of hosiery to cease deceptively pricing its products through preticketing, fictitious markups or in any other ,manner, and furnishing others with means of deception.

Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Carolina Hosiery CAROLINA HOSIERY MILLS, INC., ET AL. 695 694 © Complaint Mills, Inc., a corporation, and Ernest A. Koury and Maurice Koury, imdividually and as officers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said 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: Panacrary 1. Respondent Carolina Hosiery Mills, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of North Carolina, with its principal office and place of business located in the city of Burlington, State of North Carolina.

Respondents Ernest A. Koury and Maurice Koury 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. Their address is the same as that of the corporate respondent.

Par. 2. Respondents are now, and for some time last past have been, engaged in the business of purchasing hosiery, manufacturing and purchasing from other manufacturers hosiery greige goods, finishing hosiery, selling and distributing said hosiery to mill agents, wholesalers, distributors, jobbers, dealers, and retailers for resale to the public. , Par. 3. In the course and conduct of their business as aforesaid, respondents now cause, and for some time last past have caused, said hosiery, when sold to be shipped from their place of business in the State of North Carolina to purchasers thereof 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 hosiery in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Par. 4. Respondents, for the purpose of inducing the purchase of hosiery which is labeled and/or packaged by them have engaged in the practice of using fictitious prices by attaching to said hosiery, stickers, labels, tickets and tags upon which certain amounts are printed, thereby representing, directly or by implication, that said amounts are the usual and regular retail prices of said hosiery. In truth and in fact, said amounts are not the usual and regular retail prices of said hosiery, but are in excess of prices at which said hosiery generally sells at retail in some of the trade areas where the representations are made.

Therefore, the aforesaid acts and practices were, and are, false, misleading and deceptive.

Decision and Order V7 ETC.

Par. 5. By and through the use of the aforesaid acts and practices respondents place in the hands of jobbers, retailers, dealers and others the means and instrumentalities by and through which they may mislead and deceive the public in the manner and as to the things hereinabove alleged.

Par. 6. In the course and conduct of their aforesaid business, and at all times mentioned herein, respondents have been, and now are, in substantial competition, in commerce, with corporations, firms and individuals engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of hosiery. | Par. 7. The use by respondents of the aforesaid false, misleading, and deceptive representations and practices has had, and now has, the capacity and tendency to mislead purchasers into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said statements and representations were, and are, true and into the purchase of substantial quantities of respondents’ products by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief. Par. 8. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, were and are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents’ competitors and constituted, and now constitute, unfair methods of competition in commerce and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, in violation of Section 5 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 Deceptive Practices 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 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 m 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 CAROLINA HOSIERY MILLS, INU., HE Au. Wa’ 694 Decision: and Order have violated the said Act, 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 Carolina Hosiery Mills, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of North Carolina, with its office and principal place of business located at Burlington, North Carolina. Respondents Ernest A. Koury and Maurice. Koury are officers 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 ts ordered, That the respondents, Carolina Hosiery Mills, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Ernest A. Koury and Maurice Koury, individually and as officers of said corporation and respondents’ agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of hosiery, or any other merchandise, in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

(a) Representing, by preticketing or in any other manner, that any amount is the usual and regular retail price of merchandise when such amount is in excess of the price at which said merchandise is usually and regularly sold at retail in the trade area or areas where the representations are made. (b) Placing in the hands of jobbers, retailers, dealers, and others, means and instrumentalities by and through which they may deceive and mislead the purchasing public concerning 4 any merchandise in the respects set out above: It is further ordered, That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions. lt is further ordered, That respondents notify the Commission at least thirty (30) days prior to any proposed change in the corporate respondent such as dissolution, assignment or sale resulting in the Complaint V7 F.T.C.

‘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 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.