Amanda Colton

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

In rue Marrer or AMANDA COLTON ET AL. TRADING AS AMANDA & REGGIE COLTON CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING, FUR PRODUCTS LABELING, AND TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket. C-24. Complaint, Nov. 14, 1961—Decision, Nov. 14, 1961 Consent order requiring New York City distributors to cease violating the Wool Products Labeling Act. the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act by failing to label wool, rur, and textile products as required.

Complaint Pursuant. to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act. the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and by virtue. of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commis- AMANDA & REGGIE COLTON 11389 1138 Complaint sion, having reason to believe that Amanda Colton and Reggie Colton, individually and as copartners trading as Amanda & Reggie Colton, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Wool Products Labeling Act. of 1939, the Fur Products Labeling Act and 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 as follows: Paracrary 1. Respondents Amanda Colton and Reggie Colton are individuals trading and doing business as Amanda & Reggie Colton, a partnership. Their office and principal place of business is located at 87 West 57th Street, New York City, New York. Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Wool Products Labeling Act. of 1939 and more especially since July 1960, respondents have introduced into 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 by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged or labeled with any of the information required under the provisions of Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. Par. 4+. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth in Paragraphs TWO and THREE, were and are in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted and now constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and untair methods of competition. in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Comission Act.

Par. 5. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act, Angust 9, 1952. respondents have been, and are now engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in the sale, advertising and offering for sale. in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution. in commerce, of fur prodnets: and have sold, advertised, offered for sale. transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which had been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms “commerce”, “far and “fur product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, Par. 6. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were not labeled with any of the information required under the pro- Complaint 59 F.T.C.

visions of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. ;

Par. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by respondents in that they were not invoiced with any of the information required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations thereunder.

Par. 8. The acts and practices of the respondents, as set forth in Paragraphs FIVE, SUX AND SEVEN, were and are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted and now constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Par. 9. Subsequent. to the effective date of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, March 3, 1960, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction, sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, or the importation into the United States, of textile fiber products; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported or caused to be transported, textile fiber products, which have been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported or caused to be transported, after shipment in commerce, 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. 10. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged or labeled with any of the information required under Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

' Par. 11. The acts and practices of the respondents, as set forth in Paragraphs NINE AND TEN, were and are in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Acts, and constituted and now constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

‘AMANDA & REGGIE COLTON 114] 1138 Decision DECISION AND ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondents having been served with notice of said determination and with a copy of the complaint. the Commission intended to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set. forth in the complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that. the law has been violated as set forth in the complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission’s rules; and The Commission, having considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint. in the form contemplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order :

1. Respondents Amanda Colton and Reggie Colton are individuals trading and doing business as Amanda & Reggie Colton, a partnership. Their office and principal place of business is located at 37 West 57th Street, in the city of New York, State of New York. 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 1t is ordered, That. respondents Amanda Colton and Reggie Colton, individually and as copartners, trading as Amanda & Reggie Colton or under any other name or names, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce, or offering for sale. sale, transportation or distribution in commerce of wool products, as “commerce” and “wool product” are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act. of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist. from misbranding such products by:

Failing to affix to or place on each such product a stamp, tag, label or other means of identification showing in a clear and conspicuous manner each element. of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(1) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939. Decision 59 FITC.

Lt is further ordered, That respondents Amanda Colton and Reggie Colton, individually and as copartners, trading as Amanda & Reggie Colton or under any other name or names, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce, of any fur product; or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation, or distribution, of any fur product which is made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as “commerce”, “fur” and “fur product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. Misbranding fur products by failing to affix labels to fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the sub-sections of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Falsely and deceptively invoicing fur products by failing to furnish to purchasers of fur products invoices showing all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Lt is further ordered, That respondents Amanda Colton and Reggie Colton, individually and as copartners, trading as Amanda & Reggie Colton or under any other name or names, and respondents’ representatives, agents, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, delivery 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 any textile fiber product; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported, of any textile fiber product. which has 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 any textile fiber product, whether in its origmal state or contained in other textile fiber products, as the terms “commerce”, and “textile fiber product” are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

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.

MANKO FABRICS CO., INC., ET AL. 11438 1138 Complaint It is further 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 which they have complied with this order.