Little Georgie Togs, Inc

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

In tun Marrer or LITTLE GEORGIE TOGS, INC., ET AL.

‘CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket C-1802. Complaint, Sept. 28, 1970—Decision, Sept. 28, 1970 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturer of textile fiber produets, namely boys’ wear, to cease misbranding and falsely guaranteeing its textiles 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 Little Georgie Togs, Inc., a corporation, and Seymour 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 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: Paracrary 1. Respondent Little Georgie Togs, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. The respondent corporation maintains its office and principal place of business at 112 West 34th Street, New York, New York.

Seymour 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.

Complaint TT ETC.

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. 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 Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, invoiced, advertised, or otherwise jdentified 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 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 percentages of such fibers by weight. Par. 5. 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 promul-| gated thereunder.

Par. 6. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act in that LITTLE GEORGIE TOGS, INC., ET AL. L297 1295 Decision and Order they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: 1. Samples, swatches or specimens of textile fiber products subject to the aforesaid Acts, which were used to promote or effect sales of such textile fiber products, were not labeled to show their respective fiber content and other information required by Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in violation of Rule 21(a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

2. 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. 7. The respondents have furnished false guaranties that their textile fiber products were not misbranded by falsely representing in writing that respondents had filed a continuing guaranty under the ‘Textile Fiber Products 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. 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 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 Decision and Order WZ ELC.

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 § 2.34(b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent Little Georgie Togs, Inc., is a corporation 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 112 West 34th Street, New York, New York. Respondent Seymour 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 is ordered, That respondents Little Georgie Togs, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Seymour 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 products; 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:

LITTLE GEORGIE TOGS, INC., ET AL. 1299 1295 Decision and Order A. 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 identification to each such textile 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 affix labels to samples, swatches or specimens of textile fiber products used to promote or effect the sale of such textile fiber products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

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

It is further ordered, That respondents Little Georgie Togs, Tne., a corporation, and its officers, and Seymour Baruch, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and respondents’ 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 are not misbranded or falsely or deceptively invoiced or advertised under the provisions of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

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 this order to each of its operating divisions. Order V7 E.T.C.

lt is further ordered, That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the ‘Commisison a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner .and form in which they have complied with this order.