Coquette Frocks, Inc

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

In ter Martrer oF COQUETTE FROCKS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THB FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTI- FICATION ACTS Docket C-2007. Complaint, Aug. 17, 1971—Decision, Aug. 17, 1971 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturer of bridesmaids dresses and party dresses to cease misbranding its textile fiber products and furnishing false guaranties.

Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and 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 Coquette Frocks, Inc., a corporation, and Edward J. Impastato and Bernard F. Fontana 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 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: Paragrarn 1. Respondent Coquette Frocks, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondents Edward J. Impastato and Bernard F. Fontana are officers of the corporate respondent. Their address is 1385 Broadway, New York, New York.

Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of bridesmaids dresses and party dresses.

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, 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. Decision and Order 79 F.T.C.

Par. 3. 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 prescribed by the rules and regulations promulgated under said Act.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products but not limited thereto were textile fiber products, namely dresses with labels which failed: 1. To disclose the true generic names of the fibers present. 2. To disclose the percentage of said fibers. 3. To show the name or other identification issued and registered by the Commission, of the manufacturer of the product, or one or more persons subject to Section 3 with respect to such product. Par. 4. Certain of said textile fiber products were further misbranded by respondents in that sample swatches used to promote or effect sales of respondents dresses were not labeled to show the information required under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the rules and regulations thereunder in violation of Rule 21 of said rules and regulations.

Par. 5. Respondents have furnished false guaranties that certain of their textile fiber products were not misbranded or falsely invoiced in violation of Section 10 of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

Par. 6. The acts and practices of the 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 Division 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 219 Decision and Order 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 rule; 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 Section 2.34(b) of its rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Coquette Frocks, 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 1385 Broadway, New York, New York.

. Respondent Edward J. Impastato is an officer of said corporation and his address is the same as that of said corporation. Respondent Bernard F. Fontana is an officer of said corporation and his address is the same as that of said corporation. Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of bridesmaids and party dresses.

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 Coquette Frocks, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Edward J. Impastato and Bernard F. Fontana, 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, 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, Decision and Order 79 F-T.C.

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. Failing to affix labels to such textile fiber products showing in a clear, legible and conspicous manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. 2. Failing to affix labels showing the respective fiber con- _ tent and other required information to samples, swatches or specimens of textile fiber products subject to the aforementioned Act which are used to promote or effect sales of such textile fiber products.

B. Furnishing false guaranties that textile fiber products are not misbranded or falsely invoiced under the provisions of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. It is further ordered, That respondents notify the Commission at least 80 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 this 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 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.