The Lafayette Brass Manufacturing Company, Inc.

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

IN THE l\:fatter OF THE LAFAYETTE BRASS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Docket 6611. Compla,int, Oct. 1956-Decision, Ju.ly 23, 1957 Consent order requiring three associated New York concerns to disclose the foreign origin of lawn ~prinkler~, haze nozzles and connections, and faucet aerators they import in whole or in part from Japan, and to cease selling such products as wholly of domestic origin; and to cease misrepresenting the extent to which their sprinklers can withstand water pressure. A charge that respondents falsely represent that they manufacture the products they sell, by use of the word "Manufacturing" in their corporate names, is still pending.

Sim,.eon F. Ilouse, Esq. supporting the complaint. Charles !(orn." Esq. and Marvin Afachson, Esq. of New York , for respondents.

INITIAL DECISION PRO TANTO* BEFORE JAMES A. PURCELL HEARING EXAMINER The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents on October 31 , 1956, charging them with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act in the offering for sale, sale and distribution of various products, including lawn sprinklers, hose nozzles, hose connections and faucet aerators, in commerce as the word "commerce " is defined in said Act. Subsequent to service of the complaint respondents appeared by counsel and thereafter entered into an agreement providing for the issuance of a consent order to cease and desist., dated l\1ay 9, 1957, purporting to dispose of all of the charges of the complaint as to all parties except as to the use of the word "manufacturing" in the corporate names of the respondents The Lafayette Brass l.:fanufaeturing Company, Inc., and The Durst 1.1anufaeturing Company, Inc. , as more specifically charged in Paragraph Nine of the complaint. Said agreement, which has been signed by all respondents and their counsel, as well also by counsel in support of the complaint . There remains to be disposed of by future action a charge in the complaint of improper and misleading use of the word "manufacturing" in the corporate names of respondents. The Lafayette Brass Manufacturing Company, Inc., and The Durst Manufacturing Company, Inc.

Decision 54 F.

and approved by the Director and Assistant Director of the Commission s Bureau of Litigation, has been submitted to the abovenamed hearing examiner for his consideration and action in accordance with Section 3.25 of the Commission s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proeee.dings.

Respondents, pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, have admitted all of the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint, and have agreed that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been made in accordance with such allegations. Said agreement further provides that, with respect to that part of the proceeding therein disposed of, respondents ,,' aive any further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission, the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law, and all of the rights they may have to challenge or ~contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with said agreement. I t has also been agreed that the order to cease and desist issued in aceordanee with said agreement shall have the same foree and effect as if entered after a full hearing and that the complaint may be used in construing the terms of said order. It was further agreed that the aforesaid agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint. The portion of this proceeding, which is the subject of the aforementioned agreement containing eonsent order, having now come on for final consideration on the complaint and the said agreement and it appearing that, with respect to the issues covered by said agreement, the order therein contained provides for an appropriate disposition JJ'l' O tanto of this proceeding as to all parties, said agreement is hereby accepted and is ordered filed upon becoming a part of the decision of the Commission, pursuant to Sections 3. and 3.25 of the Commission s Rules of Practice. The hearing examiner aceordingly makes the following jurisdictional findings and order:

1. That respondents, The Lafayette Brass l\lanufaeturing Company, Ine., The Durst ~lanufaeturing Company, Inc., and :Marshall l\letal Products, Inc., are corporations existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with their offices and principal place of business located at No. 409 Lafayette Street, New Yor1\:, New Yor1\:. Respondents Pauline D. Kohn, Norman Redlieh and David Durst are officers of said eorporations and formulate, direct and control the policies, ads and practices of said corporate respondents. Their address is the same as that of the corporate respondents.

LAFAYETTE BRASS MANUFACTURING CO. , INC., ET AL. 119 :In Decision 2. That the Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents hereinabove named.

3. That the complaint herein states a valid cause of action against the said respondents, under the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and that this proceeding is in the interest of the public..

ORDER I t is O1ylered, That respondents The Lafayette Brass l\lanufaeturing Company, Inc. , a corporation, The Durst ~lanufacturing Company, Inc. , a corporation, l\:farshall l\letal Products, Inc.. , a corporation, and their officers, and respondents Pauline D. Kohn K orman Redlich and David Durst, individually and as officers of said corporate respondents, and respondents' agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device in connection ,with the sale and distribution of lawn sprinklers hose nozzles, hose conneetions and faucet aerators and other similar products, in commerce, as "commerce:' is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. Offering for sale or selling said products, which are in 'Thole or substantial part of foreign origin, ,,-without clearly and eonspicuonsly disclosing on such products and their containers, in such manner that it ",ill not be hidden or obliterated, the country of origin thereof.

2. Representing, directly or by implic.ation, that its products are of domestie origin, when, in fact, such products are manufactured other foreignin 'Thole or in substantial part in Japan or any country.

3. Heprese.nting, directly or by implication, that their lawn sprinafter pres-klers are crimped in such a manner as to ,,'ithstand the ,,' sure 01' any municipality in the United States, unless such is the fact, or otherwise misrepresenting the extent to which said sprinlders can ,,-ithstand 'Tater pressure.

DECISION OF THE CO::\DIISSIOX AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF CO::\IPLI.-\NCE s Rules of Practice Pursuant to Seetion 3.21 of the Commission 23rd daythe initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the of July, 1957, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly:

It is 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 ",hleh they have complied with the order to cease and desist. &.

120 FEDERAL TRADE COJ:\1J\IISSION DECISIONS Appearances 54 F.