Stetson Woolen Co., Inc

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

In rue Marrer or STETSON WOOLEN CO., INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE WOOL. PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-2145. Complaint, Feb. 10. 1972—Decision, Feb. 10, 1972 Consent order resuiring a Los Angeles. Calif., seller of imported and donestic woolen fabrics to cease misbranding its woolen products. Complaint 80 F.T.C.

Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Stetson Woolen Co., Inc., a corporation, and Bernard H. Wasserman and Anthony E. Aaronson, 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 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: Paracrapy 1. Respondent Stetson Woolen Co., Inc. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, with its office and principal place of business located at 1329 East 16th Street, Los Angeles, California. Individual respondents Bernard H. Wasserman and Anthony E. Aaronson 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 the corporate respondent. Respondents are engaged in the purchase of woolen fabrics, both imported and domestic, and the sale of same to customers in various States of the United States.

Par. 2. Respondents, now and for some time last past, have introduced into commerce, sold, transported, distributed, delivered for shipment, shipped, and offered for sale, in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, 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, Jabeled or otherwise identified with respect. to the character or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto, were woolen fabrics stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified as containing “100% Wool” whereas in truth and in fact, such fabrics contained substantially different fibers and amounts of. fibers than represented.

Par. 4. Certain of said wool products were further misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled, or other- STETSON WOOLEN CO., INC., ET AL. 149 147 Decision and Order wise 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 wool products, namely fabrics, 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 respondents as set forth above were, and are, in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 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. 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 Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement. containing a consent order, an admis: sion 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 Jaw 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 exeuted consent agreement and placed such agreement on the public Decision and Order 80 F.T.C.

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 Stetson Woolen Co., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, with its office and principal place of business located at 1829 East 16th Street, Los Angeles, California. Respondents Bernard H. Wasserman and Anthony E. Aaronson 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 the corporate respondent. Respondents are engaged in the purchase of woolen fabrics, both imported and domestic, and the sale of same to customers in various States of 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 Stetson Woolen Co., Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Bernard H. Wasserman and Anthony E. Aaronson, 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 into commerce, or offering for sale, sale, transportation, distribution, delivery for shipment or shipment, in commerce, of wool products as “commerce” and “wool product” are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding wool products by:

1. Falsely and deceptive 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 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 notify the Commission at Jeast 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 MICKIE STEIGER, INC., ET AL. 151 147 Complaint subsidiaries or 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.