Jacobs Brothers Industries, Inc., et al.

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

JACOBS BROTHERS INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE’ FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING AND THE. TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket C-1890: Complaint, Apr. 2, 1971—Decision, Apr. 2, 1971 Consent order requiring South Hackensack, N.J., manufacturers of children’s: wearing apparel to cease misbranding their wool products and falsely guaranteeing their textile fiber products. ComMrPpLaINntT ~ Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 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 Jacobs Brothers Industries, Inc., a corporation, and Bernard Jacobs, David Janco and Robert Jacobs, individually and as: officers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and 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 Jacob Brothers Industries, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Jersey with its office and principal place of business located at 11-C Empire Boulevard, South Hackensack, New Jersey.

Respondents Bernard Jacobs, David Janco and Robert Jacobs 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.

Respondents are engaged in the manufacturing of children’s apparel. They ship and distribute such products to various customers throughout the United States.

Par. 2. 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 JACOBS BROTHERS INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL. oly 578 Complaint offered for sale, in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1989, wool products as “wool product” is defined: therein.

Par. 3. Certain of said wool products were misbranded by the 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 stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified as containing “92% Reprocessed wool and 8% Nylon” whereas, in truth and in fact, such wool products contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than represented. Par. 4. Certain of said wool products were further misbranded by the 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 certain wool products, namely children’s apparel, with labels on or affixed thereto, which failed to disclose the percentage of the total fiber weight of the 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 centum or more; and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers. Par. 5. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth above were, and are, in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act ‘of 1989 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, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Par. 6. The respondents have furnished false guaranties that their textile fiber products were not misbranded nor falsely nor deceptively advertised or invoiced by falsely representing in writing that respondents had filed a continuing guaranty under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act with the Federal Trade Commission, 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.

580 - FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Decision and Order 78 F.T.C.

Par. 7. The acts and practices of respondents, as set forth above in Paragraph Six, 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 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 respondents named in the caption hereof, and the respondents having been furnished thereafter with -a copy of a draft of complaint which the Division of Textiles and Furs, Bureau of Consumer Protection 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 Wool Products Labeling, Act of 1939 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 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 Jacobs Brothers Industries, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State “of New Jersey with its office and principal place of business located at 11-C Empire Boulevard, South Hackensack, New Jersey: - Respondents Bernard Jacobs, David ‘Janco and Robert Jacobs are officers of said corporation. They formulate, direct and control the le aan ee es er oes) VOR 578 Decision and Order policies, acts and practices of said corporation and their address is the same as that of said corporation.

Respondents are engaged in the manufacturing of children’s apparel. They ship and. distribute such products to various customers throughout the United States.

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 Jacobs Brothers Industries, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Bernard Jacobs, David Janco and Robert Jacobs, individually and as officers of said corporation, and _ 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 the offering for sale, sale, transportation, distribution, delivery for shipment or shipment, in commerce, of wool products, as “commerce” and “wool products” are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding such products by: , 7 1. Falsely and deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, or otherwise identifying such products as to the character or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. 2. Failing to securely 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 1939.

It is further ordered, That respondents Jacobs Brothers Industries, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Bernard Jacobs, David Janco and Robert Jacobs, individually and as officers of said corporation, and 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 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 lease 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 Complaint 78 F.T.C.

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. 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 complied with this order.