Paul Tennenbaum trading as Tenen Quilt Company

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

IN THE MATTER OF PAUL TENNENBAUM TRADING AS TENEN QUILT COMPANY DECISION IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACT Docket 6151. Complaint, Dec. 14, 1953-Decision, May, 1954 Where an individual engaged in the manufacture and interstate sale and distribution of wool products as defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act- (a) Misbranded certain of said products within the intent and meaning of the Wool Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that certain quilts or comforters, labeled as containing "All New Material Consisting of ALL WOOL" or "All New Material Consisting of ALL WOOL BATTING " did not contain all new material or "All Wool" and (b) Misbranded certain of said products in that they were not stamped, tagged or labeled as required under the provisions of said Aet and Rules: Held That such acts and practices were in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constituted unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce. Before Mr. J. Earl 0 ox hearing examiner. and Mr. John J. McNally for the Mr. George E. Steinmetz Commission.

Mr. Samuel Rosenthal of Newark, N. J., for respondent. DECISION OF THE CO""IMISSION Pursuant to Rule XXII of the Commission s Rules of Practice, and as set forth in the Commission s "Decision of the Commission and Order to File Report of Compliance, dated May 11, 1954, the initial decision in the instant matter of hearing examiner J. Earl Cox, as set out as follows, became on that date the decision of the Commission. INITIAL DECISION BY J. EARL cox, HEARING EXAMINER The complaint in this proceeding charges that the respondent, Paul Tennenbaum, trading as Tenen Quilt Company of 16 Main Street Newark, New Jersey, has violated the .Wool Products Labeling Adt of 1939, and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and has engaged in acts and practices which constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Specifically, it is alleged in the complaint that the respondent has manufactured, ofiered for sale, and sold in interstate commerce certain wool products, quilts and com- TENEN QUILT CO. 977 976 Order forters, which were falsely and deceptively labeled as containing "All New Material Consisting of ALL 'VOOL " or "All New Material Consisting of 'VOOL BATTING " when in fact the material was neither all wool nor all new.

By answer the respondent admitted the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission and the other allegations of the complaint but stated that the acts of misbranding were not willful. Respondent further consented to the entry of a cease and desist order in the form set forth in the notice attached to the complaint. Under these circumstances the facts are found to be as stated the complaint and since wilfulness is not an element of the offense charged, the conclusion is reached that the acts and practices of respondent are in violation of the .W ool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Therefore It is order-ed That respondent, Paul Tennenbaum, trading as Tenen Quilt Company, or trading under any other name, and respondent' 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 or distribution in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commisoion Act and the 'V ool Products Labeling Act of 1939, of quilts or comforters or other wool products, as such products are defined in and subject to the VV 001 Products Labeling Aet of 1939, which produ( ts contain, purport to contain or in any way are represented as containing "wool reprocessed wool" or "reused wool " as those terms are defined in said Act, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding such products by :

1. :Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, or otherwise identifying such products as to the character or amount of the constitnent fibers therein;

2. Failing to securely aiTx to or place on each such product a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identiilcation showing in a clear and conspicuous manner:

(a) The percentage of the total fiber weight of such wool products exclusive of ornamentation not e,Xcecding JIve per centum of said total fiber weight, of (1) wool, (2) reprocessed wool, (3) reused wool, (4) each fiber other than wool where said percentage by weight is five per centum or more, and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers. (b) The maximum percentage of the total weight of such wool products of any nonfibrous loading, Jllling or adulterating material. 403443--57--- Order 50 F. T. C. (c) The name or registered identification number of the manufacturer of such wool products or of one or more persons engaged in introducing such products into commerce or in offering for sale, selling, transporting, distributing, or delivering for shipment thereof in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the IV ool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

PToviding, That the foregoing provisions concerning misbranding shall not be construed to prohibit acts permitted by Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 3 of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939. Providing further That nothing contained ill this order shall be construed as limiting any applicable provision of the "'V ool Products Laheling Act of 1939 or the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

ORDER TO TILE REPORT 01' COMPLIANCE It is ordered That the respondent herein shall within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with the order to cease and desist (as required by said declaratory decision and order of May 11 1954 J. Commissioner Carretta not participating.

PHILIP MOHRIS & CO,) LTD. , INC. 979 Order Vacating IN THE Matter OF PHILIP MORRIS & CO. LTD., INC.

, Aug. 5, 1942. Original decision, Dec. , 1952, 49Docket 4794. Complaint , May, 1954 F. 1'. C. 703. Order vacating, etc. Charge: Advertising falsely comparative and protective qualities, etc., of Philip Morris cigarettes.

Before Mi". Earl J. K olb hearing examiner. McManus and Mr. Daniel J. Murphy for the Mr' . Frederick J. Commission.

Lee, Toomey Kent of \Vashington, D. C. , and Pennie, Edmonds lIloTton Barr-ws& Taylor and Oonboy, Hewitt, O' Brien&; Boardman, of .K ew York City, for respondent.

ORDER VACATING DECISION m' THE CmUI'SSION AND Iniriat DECISION OF Tile I-IF.ARING EXAJlHNER, REOPENING PROCEEDING AND REMAND- ING CASE TO HEARING EXAiVIlNER The. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Cireuit having granted the Commission s motion to set aside the order to cease and desist entered in this proceeding on December 29, 1952 and having remanded said proceeding to thc Commission "for reconsidcration and such disposition as the public interest, the facts, and the law may warrant" ; and The Commission having reconsidereu its former deeision, and being of the opinion that the record in support thereof did not provide an adequate basis for an informed determination of the principal issue in thc case, namely, whether or not Philip Morris cigarettes are less irritating than other leading brands of cigarettes; and The Commission being of the further opinion that the public interest requires that this deficiency in the record be corrected: It is ordered That the Commission s decision entered herein on December 29, 1952, its order ruling on the respondent' s appeal from the hearing examiner s initial deeioion, entered on the same date, and the hearing examiner s initi Ll decision, fied January 23 , 1952, be, and they hereby are, all vacated and set aside. It is fur-the-r ordered That this proceeding be, and it hereby is, reopened and remanded to the hearing examiner for the receipt of such further testimony and evidence as may be offered in support of and in opposition to the allegations of the complaint in the light of this order.

Syllabus 50 F. '1'. C.