Isidor Kopelman et al. doing business as; Mutual Hat and Cap Co.

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

IN THE MATTER OF ISIDOR I\:OPEL:NIAN ET AL, DOING BUSINESS AS NIUTUAL HAT AND CAP CO.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL '.I'TRADE COl\Il\HSSION ACT AND OF THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACT Docket 6324. Complaint, Ap1' 4, 1955-Decision, July, 1955 Consent order requiring a manufacturer in New York City to cease violating the Wool Products Labeling Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act through labeling as "100% wool", caps which contained a large percentage of reprocessed or reused wool, and failing to identify on tags or labels the manufacturer, etc., of certain caps.

Before ill)'. John Lewis hearing examiner, Jfr. Roslyn D. Young, Jl'. ror the Commission. CO)IPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission .Act and the "'\Vool 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 Isidor Kopelman, and Charles n::opelman, individually and as copartners trading and doing business as M:utual Hat and Cap Co., hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts, and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the vV 001 Products Labeling Act or 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: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondents, Isidor I(opeIInail and Charles I(opelman, are individuals and copartners, trading and doing business under the name and style of ~1utual Hat and Cap Co. with their offices and principal place of business located at 25 East 4th Street New York, New York.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the vV 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939, and more especially during 1954, respondents have manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced irito commerce, sold, transported, distributed, delivered for shipment and offered for sale in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in said Act. wool products, as "wool products" are defined therein. PAR. 3. Certain of said wool products were misbranded within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a). (1) of said ",Vool Products Decision 52 F, T, C.

Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or tagged with respect to the character and amount or the constitutent fibers contained therein.

Among such misbranded products were caps labeled or tagged as consisting of "100% wool " whereas in truth and in fact said caps did not consist of 100% wool as the term "wooF' is defined in said Wool Products Labeling Act, but contained a large percentage of reprocessed or reused wool, as the terms "reprocessecI~' and " reused" wool are likewise defined therein.

PAR. 4. Certain of said wool products describe.d as caps were further 1nisbranded within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a) (2) of the "\V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were not stamped, tagged or labeled as to disclose the name or the registered identification number of the manufacturer thereof, or of one or more persons subject to Section 3 of said Act with respect to said wool products. PAR. 5. The acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged constitute misbranding of wool products and are in violation of the ",V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder; and all of the aforesaid acts and practices as alleged herein, are to the prej udice and inj nry of the pH bJ ic and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act, INITIAL DECISION BY JOHN LEWIS, HEARING EXAMINER The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents on April 4, 1955, charging them with hnving violated the vV 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and the Federal Trade Comn1ission Act, through the misbranding of certain wool prod nets. After being duly served with said complaint, the respondents entered into a stipulation with counsel supporting the complaint, providing for the entry of a consent order disposing of all the issues in this proceeding. Said stipulation has been submitted to the above-named hearing examiner, heretofore duly designated by the Commission for his consideration in accordance with Section 3.25 of the Commis- :sion s Rules of Practice.

Respondents, pursuant to the aforesaid stipulation, have admitted -an the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and agreed that the record herein may be taken as if the. Commission had made findings of jurisdictional facts in accordance with such allegations.- Said stipn- MUTUAL HAT AND CAP CO.

Order lation further provides that all parties expressly waive . a hearing before the hearing examiner or the Commission, and all further .and other procedure to which the respondents may be entitled under the Federal Trade Commission Act or the Rules of Practice of the Commission. Respondents have also agreed that the order to cease and desist issued in accordance with said stipulation shall have the same force and effect as if made after a full hearing, and specifically waive any and an right, power, or privilege to challenge or contest the validity of said order, It has been further stipulated and agreed that the complaint herein may be used in construing the terms of the order provided for in said stipulation, and that the signing of said stipulation is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respond~mts that they have. violated the law as alleged in the complaint.

This proceeding having now come on for final consideration by the hearing examiner on the complaint and the aforesaid stipulation for consentorder dated June 1 , 1955, and it appearing that said stipulation provides for an appropriate disposition of this proceeding, the same is hereby accepted and ordered filed as part of the record herein by the hearing examiner, ,rho makes the following fin~dings, for jurisdictional purposes, and order:

1. Respondents, Isidor I\.:opelman and Charles I\.:opelman, are individuals and copartners, trading and doing business under the name and style of Mutual Hat and Cap Co., with their offices and principal place of business located at 25 East 4th Street, New York, New York. . 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents hereinabove named. The complaint states a course of action against said respondents under the 'V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Federal Trade Commission Act, and this proceeding is in the interest of the public. ORDER It ls orde?' That the respondents, Isidor I\.:opelman and Charles Kopelman, individually and trading and doing business under the firm name of Mutual Hat and Cap Co" or under any other name or names and their respective representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device in connection with the introduction or manufacture for introduction into commerce, or offering for sale, sale, transportation or distribution in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act and the ",V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939, of caps or other "wool products" as such products are defined in and subject to the 'V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939, which products contain, purport to contain, or in any way Order 52 F. T. C.

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 constituent fibers included 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;

(a) The percentage of the total fiber weight of such wool products exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding five per centum of said total fiber weight, of (1) wool, (2) reprocessed wool, (3) reused wool, (4) such fiber other than wool where said percentage by weight of such fiber is five per centum or more, and (5) the aggregate of an other fibers;

(b) The maximum percentage of the total weight of such wool products, of any non-fibrous loading, filling, or adulterating matter; (c) The name or the registered identification number of the manufacturer of such wool products or of one or more persons ~ngaged in introducing such wool product into commerce, or in the offering for sale, sale, transportation, distribution or delivery for shipment thereof in commerce, as "commerce~' is defined in the "'V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939.

Provided That the foregoing provisions concerning Inisbranding shah not be .construed to prohibit acts permitted by paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 3 of the vV 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and Provided fu-rthe?' That nothing contained in this order shall be construed as limiting any applicable provisions of said Act or the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Sec. 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 22nd day of July, 1955, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly: t is orde?' 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 the order to. cease and desist. LOVELY LADY COMFORT CO. ET AL.

Complaint