Grand Gaslight, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF GRAND GASLIGHT, INC., TRADING AS GRAND HANDI\:ERCHIEF COMPANY ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER , ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket 8986. Complaint, Mar. 1961-Decision, Auf). 4, 1961 Consent order requiring New York City distributors of textile fiber products to cease violating the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act by selling handkerchiefs which were not labeled with required information, and by furnishing false guaranties that their textile fiber products w",-re not misbranded.

COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Grand Gaslight, Inc., a corporation, trading as Grand Handkerchief Company, and Samuel Ruderfer, individually and as an officer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, 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 asfollows: 198 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION' DECISIONS Complaint 59 F.

m. 1. .Grand Gaslight, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its office and principal place of business located at 123 Fifth Avenue New York New York. Said corporation employs the trade name Grand Handkerchief Company in its business operations.

Samuel Ruderfer is an officer of the said corporate respondent ~d formulates, controls and directs the acts, practices and policies of said respondent. His office. and principal place of business is the same as that of the corporate respondent. PAR. 2. . Subsequent. to the effective date of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act on l\farch 3, 1960 , respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction, sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, and in the importation into the lJnited States, of textile fiber products; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported textile fiber products, which had been advertised or ofiered for sale in commerce; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered. transported and caused to be transported, after.r shipment in coinmerce, textile. fiber products, either in their original state or "which were made of other textile products so shipped in commerce, as the terms "commerce" and "textile fiber products~' are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. PAR. 3. Certain of said textile fiber products to wit: handkerchiefs were misbranded' by respondents in that they were not st.amped, tagged, or labeled with the information required under Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and in the manner and form as prescribed by the R.ules and Regulations promulgated under such Act.

. PAR. 4. The respondents have furnished false guarantees that their textile fiber products were not misbranded in violation of Section 10 of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. PAR. 5. The respondents, in the course and conduct of their business, as aforesaid, were and are in substantial competition with other corporations, firms, and individuals like"ise engaged in the manufacture and sale of textile fiber products including handkerehiefs in PAR. 6. commerce.The acts and practices of respondents, as set forth herein were in vio1ntion of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations thereunder; and constituted, and GRAND HANDKERCHIEF CO. ET AL' 199 197 Decision now constitute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal TI ade Commission Act.

Jlf1.. De IF-itt T. Puckett for the Commission. No appearance for respondents.

INITB.L DECISION BY 1VILLIAl\I L. PACK HEARING EXAMINER The complaint in this matter charges the respondents with certain violations of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. An agreement has now been entered into by respondents and counsel supporting the complaint which provides, among other things, that respondents admit all of the jurisdictional allegations in the complaint; that the record on which the initial decision and the decision of the Commission shall be based shall eoi1sist solely of the complaint and agreement; that the inclusion of findings of fact and conclusions of law in the decision disposing of this matter is waived, together with any further proeedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission; that the order hereinafter set forth may be entered in disposition of the proceeding, such order to have the same force and effect as if entered after a. full hearing, respondents specifically waiving any and all rights to challenge or contest the validity of such order; that the order may be altered, modified, or set aside in the manner provided for other orders of the, Commission; that the complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order; and that the agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violate.d the law alleged in the complaint.

The hearing examiner having eonsiderecl the agreement and proposed order and being of the opinion that they provide an adequate basis for appropriate disposition of the proceeding, the agreement is hereby accepted, the following jurisdictional findings made, and the following order issued:

1. Respondent Grand Gaslight, Inc., is a New York corporation with its office and principal place of business located at 123 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York. Said corporation employs the trade name Grand Handkerchief Company in its business operations. Respondent Samuel Ruderfer is an officer of said corporation. formulates, controls and directs the acts, practices and policies of ,Decision 59 F.

said corporate respondent. His address is the same as that of the corporate respondent.

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 is ordered That Grand Gaslight, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Samuel Ruderfer, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, delivery for introduction, manufacture for introduction, sale, advertising or offering for sale, in commerce, or the transportation or causing to be transported, in commerce, or the importation into the United States of textile fiber products; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported, of textile fiber products which have been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported, after shipment in commerce, of textile fiber products, whether in their original state or contained in other textile fiber products, as the terms "commerce and "textile fiber products" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: A. Misbranding textile fiber products by failing to affix labels to such products showing each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

B. Furnishing false guarantees that textile fiber products are not misbranded under the provisions of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 4th day , ac-of August 1961 become the decision of the Commission; and cordingly :

t is 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 the order to cease and desist. YANKEE LEATHER GOODS CO., INC. _ 201 Complaint