Kadima, Inc

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

In vor Matrer or KADIMA, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF TITE FED- ERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICA- TION ACTS Docket C-1780. Complaint, Aug. 13, 1970—Decision, Aug. 13, 1970 Consent order requiring a Pinellas Park, Fla., manufacturer of boys’ wear to cease violating the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act by misbranding its textile fiber products.

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 Kadima, Inc., a corporation, and Samuel Baruch, 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 promul- Complaint 77 *E.T.C.

gated 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: Paracraru 1. Respondent Kadima, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida. The respondent corporation maintains its office and principal place of business at 6250 82nd Avenue North, Pinellas Park, Florida.

Respondent Samuel Baruch is an officer of said corporation. He formulates, directs and controls the policies, acts and practices of the corporate respondent including those hereinafter referred to. His address is the same as that of the corporate respondent. Respondents are’ engaged in the manufacture of textile fiber products, namely boys’ wear.

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 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. ;

Pan. 5. 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 boys’ wear, which .contained substantially different amounts and types of fibers than as represented.

Par. 4. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled, or KADIMA, INC., ET AL. 1149 1147 Decision and Order otherwise identified as required under 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 percentages of such fibers 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 inasmuch as the required information as to fiber content was not set forth in such a manner as to separately show the fiber content of each section of textile fiber products containing two or more sections, in violation of Rule 25(b) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

Par. 6. 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 and unfair and deceptive acts and 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 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 467-207—73——_74 Decision and Order V7 F.C.

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 Kadima, 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 6250 82nd Avenue North, Pinellas Park, Florida. Respondent Samuel Baruch is an officer of said corporation. He formulates, directs and controls the policies, acts and practices 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 ts ordered, That respondents Kadima, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Samuel Baruch, 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, 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 misbranding such 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 the constituent fibers contained therein. 2. Failing to affix a stamp, tag, label, or other means of KADIMA, INC., ET AL. 1151 1147 Order identification to each such iextile fiber 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.

3. Failing to separately set forth the required information as to fiber content on the required label in such a manner as to separately show the fiber content of the separate sections of textile fiber products containing two or more sections where such form of marking is necessary to avoid deception. It is further ordered, That respondents notify the Commission at least 30 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 the order to each of its operating divisions. It is furthered 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.