Bernard Shapiro Woolen Corp.

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

IN Tile MATTER BERXARD SHAPIRO WOOLEN CORP. ET AL.

COx SENT ORDER TC" I-: REGARD TO THE ALLEGED ''"OLATION OF THE FEDER.\L TRADE C01\IlIISSIOX .\XD THE WOOL rHODECTS LABELING ACTS Docket 8219. Complai. , Dec. 1960-Decision, Metr. 30 , 1961 COUSCTIt crder requiring Xe"\" York City importers of wool product:' from Italy to cea:.e yiolating" the \\7001 Fronuets Labeling Aet by labeling as eonsiRtiug of Kat less than 85% Reprocessed ,Vaal and not more than l!)o/ other fibres . fabrics. y,l1ich contained substantially le!;s than .':J% woolen fibers, awl by failng in other respects to comply with labeling requirements.

IPLAIXT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the \\'001 Products Labe1illg 'cct of ID39 , nnd by virtue of the authority.y vested in it by solid Acts, the Fedel'tll Trade Commission having reason to believe that Bernard Shapiro \Voolen Corp., a corporation, and ion'is . J. ",Volf Samuel Applebaum, and Nat.han Pe,rlman, individually and as offcers or saiel corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, h Lve violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and I egulations prolIulgated under t.he vVool Products Labeling Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding b:- it in respect thereof ,yould be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint, stating its c.charges in that respect as follows: PAR.\GIl.\PH 1. Respondent. BerlJarcl Shapiro YV"oole.n Corp. , is a corporation organi,,ecl. existing and doing business under and virtllB of the Jaws of the Stale of E'W York. Individual respondents Iorris T. ",Volf, Snl1uel_ pplebal1rn, auc1 Kathan Perlma.n are Office'TS of sa.id corpol'atp respollllent. S,lic1incl1,Tid\1nl respondents formulate direct a.nd c.ontroJ the acts, policies, and practices of the corporate respondent, including the acts and practices hereinafter referred to. , , Complaint 58 Ji' All respondents have their offce and principal place of business at 271 .West 38th Street, New York, New York. PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the ,Vool Products Labeling Act of 1930 and more especially since January 1, 1959, respondents have imported irom Italy and introduced into C0111ne1'C8 as commerce" is defined in the ,1'001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 wool products 1S "wool products " are defined therein. PAIL 3. Cert.ain of said wool products, namely wooJen fabrics were misbranded by respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4(a) (1) of said Wool Products 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 of the const.ituent fibers contained therein. Among such misbra.nded Iyoolen products 'ivere woolen fabrics labeled or ta.gaged by respondents as consist.ing of "Not less than 85% Reprocessed ,Vool and not more t.han 15% other fibres " whereas, in truth and in fact, said woolen fabrics in each instance contained substantially less woolen fibers than represented. PAR. 4. Certain of said wool pl"ducts were furt.her misbmnded by respondents in that they "ere not stamped, t.agged or labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4(a) (2) of the ,1'001 Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. PAIL 5. The respondents, in the course and conduct of their business, as aforesaid, ,were, and are, in substantjal competition in commerce, with corporations, firms and individuals likewise engaged in the importat.ion and sa.1e of wool products of the same general nature as those sol d by respondents.

PAR. 6. The acts and practices of the respondents, as set fort.h in Paragraphs 3 and 4 above, were, and are, in violation of the 'Vool Products Labeling Aet of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, and now constitute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices Rnd unfair methods of cOlllpetition in commerce, within the intent a.nd meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Oharles W. O'Oonnell, Esq. and ATthnr Wolter Jr. , Esq. supporting the complaint.

respondents, for themselves.

INITIAL DECISlOX BY LEON R.. GROSS: HEARING EXAl\INCH On December 9, 1960: the Federa.l Tra.de Commission issued a. complaint a.against the above-named respondents, in which they were BERNARD SHAPIRO 'VOOLE CORP. ET AL. 535 533 Decision charged with yiolating the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Wool Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder by falsely or deeeptiyely labeling ancl tagging wool products sold by them in interstate commerce. The complaint alleges that responclcnts falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled or identified such wool products as to the character or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein; and failed to affx labels to such products showing each element of information required to be disclosed by !l4(a) (2) of the 'Wool Products Labeling' Act of 1939. A true and correct, copy of the complaint was served upon the respondents and each and all of them as required by law. Thereafter respondents appeared and agreed to dispose of this proceeding without a formal hearing pursuant to the terms of an agreement dated .January 27 , 1961 , containing consent order to cease and desist. The agreement was submitted to the undersigned hearing examiner on February 1, 1961 , in accordance with 93.25 of the Commission s Bules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings. The agreement purport.s to dispose of this proceeding as to the respondents and each and all of them and contains the form of a consent cease and desist order "which the parties have represented is dispositive of the issues involved in this proceeding. The agreement has been signed by the corporate respondent by its president, by the individual respondents individually flld as offcers of said corporation, and by the counsel supporting the complaint, and has been approved by the Assistant Director, Acting Associate Director, and Director of the Bureau of Litigation of the Fec1era,l Tnule Commission. In said agreement respondents admit all of the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint and agree that t.he record may be taken as if fmdings of jurisdictional facts had been made in accordance with such allegations. In the agreement the respondents waive: (a) any further proceclura.l steps before the hearing exa,miner and the Commission; (b) the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law; and (c) all rights respondents may l1aye to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance \with the agreement.

The parties further agree, in said agreement, that the record on which the initial decision and the decision of the Commission shall be based shall consist solely of the complaint and the agreement; that the agreement shall not become a part of the offcial record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Federal Trade Commission; that the order to cease and desist entered in this proceeding by the Commission may be entered without further notice to the respondents, and when so entered such order will have the same 536 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIO DECISIQ:-S Findings 58 F.

force and effect as if entered after a full hearing. Said order may be altereel, modiiied or set aside in the manner provided for other orders. The complaint ma.y be used in construing the terms of the order.

The patties have covenanted that t.he said agreement is for sett.lement purposes only and does not constitute an a,clmission by the respondents tlmt t.hey have violated the law as al1egecl in the complaint.

This proceeding having now come on for final com:lderation on the complaint. and t.he aforesaid agreement of January 27, 1861. containing consent order, and it appearing that the order which is approved in and by said agreement disposes of all the issues presented by the complaint as to all of the parties involved, said agreement is hereby accept.ed and approved as complying with Ss3.21 and 3.25 of the Commission s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings. The undersigned hearing examiner, having considered the agreement. and proposed order and being of the opinion that the accepta,nce thereof will be in t.he public interest: ma,kcs the following findings and issues the follmving order:

FINDINGS 1. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject maiter of this proceeding; and this proceeding in the public interest;

2. Respondent. Bernard Shapiro ,:'oolen Corp. is a. corporate.ion organized, existing and doing business under.r and by virt,ne of the lots of the State of Xew York. Individual respondents J\forris J. V olf, Samuel A pplebaum, and N at Perlman are offcers of said corporate respondent. Saiel individual respondents formulate, direct nel cont.rol the acts, policies: and practices of the corporate respond ent. All respondents have their offce and principal place of businoss at 271 Yest 38th Street, New York, Kew York. 3. Respondents are engaged in commerce as "commerce:' is defined in thc pertinent statutes ,which arc invoked by the complaint filed herein. KO\v, therefore It is o?'lered t respondent Bernard Shapiro Voolcn Corp. , a T. ,Volf, Samuel Appleba.mneorporation and its offcers, :Morris and Rat Perlman, individually and as offcers of said corporation and rpspondents ' representat.ives, agents and employees, directly or t.through any corporate or ot.her devic.e, in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the offering for sa.le, sa.le: transportation. or distrilmt,ion in commerce, as "commerce.e" is (refined in the Federal Trn,de Commission Act. and the ,V 001 Products La.beling Act of STYLE-RITE GIRL COAT, INC. , ET AL. 537 533 Complaint 1930, of woolen f tbrics or other "'wool products" as such products are defined in and subject to the \Yool Products Labeling Act of 1939, do forth with cease and desist from misbranding such products by:

1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, or othenvise identifying such products as to the character or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein;

2. Failing to affx labels on such products showing each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(a) (2) of the iV 001 Products Labehng Act of 1939.

DECISION OF THE co::nnSSloN AXD ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF CO:\IPLL\NCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice the initial decision of the he tring examiner shrdl, on t.he 30th day of l\:Iu,lch, 1961 , become the c18cision of the Commission; and accordingly:

It is ordered That the a.bove-named respondents shall, within sixty (60) clays after service upon them of this order, file with the Connnission a report in writing, sett.ing forth in detail t.hemanner jn which they have complied with the order to cease and desist.