Bernard Krieger & Son, Inc., et al.

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

IN THE ::1ATrn OF BERNAHD KHIEGER & SON, mG., ET AL.

ORDER ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COl\DnssIO AND THE TEXTILE FIBER Products IDENTIICATION ACTS Docket 8368. Complaint, Ap1.. 20, 1961-Decision, Mar. S, 1962 Order requiring New York City jobbers to cease Yiolating the 'Textie Fiber Products Identification Act by failing to label handl;:rchiefs with the required information.

COl\Il'LAINT Pursuant to the provisions of t.he Federal Trade Commission Act and the Textile Fiber Product.s Identification Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade, C01nmission having reason to believe that Bernard ICrieger &. Son, Inc., a corporation, and A. Joseph ICrieger, individually and as an offccr of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents have violated the provisions of such Acts and the Rules and Hegulations under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof \vauld be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Bernard Krieger &. Son, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the In of the State of N cw York with its notice and principal place of business located at 105 Orchard Street, Kew York, K. A. Joseph ICrieger is an offcer of the said corporate respondent and controls, directs and formulates the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent. :His offce and principal place of business is the same as that of the said corporate respondent. PAH. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act on March 3, 1960, respondents have been and 472 FEDERAL TRADE COJ\admission DECISIOXS Initial Decision 60 F.

are now engaged in the introduction, sale, advertising and offe.ring for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation or causmg to be transporteel in commerce, and in the importation into the United 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 advcrtiscd or offered for sale in commerce; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, after shipment in commerce textile fiber products, either in their original state, or 'which have been made into other textile fiber products so shipped in commerce, as the terms "col11Jnerce, and "textile fiber products" ate 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 stamped, tagged or labeled with tbe 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 such Act. PAR. 4. The respondents, in the course and conduct of their business, as aforesaid, were and are in substantial competition with other corporations, firms and :individuals l:ikewise engaged' in the manu facture and sale of textile fiber products including handkerchiefs, in commerce.

PAR. 5. The acts and practices of respondents, as set forth herein were and "Te in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Hegulations therennder; and constituted, and now constitute, unfa.ir and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Mr. De Witt T. Fueleett for the Commission. Hespondents not represented by counsel.

INITIAL DECISION BY "\VILLIA:1I L. PACK, llEARING EXAMINJm 1. The complaint in this matter charges the respondents with violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder, and the Federal Trade Commission Act, in connection with the sale or handkerchiefs. After the filing of respondents' answer, a hearing was held at which respondent A. Joseph Kreiger, both for himself and for the corporate respondent, admitted a11 of the material allegations in the complaint. Thereafter proposed findings and conclusions and order were submitted by counsel supporting the complaint, respondents having elected BERXAHD KRIEGER & SON, INC., ET AL. 473 471 Initial Decision not to submit such proposals, and the case is now before the heating examiner for final consideration. Any proposed findings or conclusions not included herein have been rejected. 2. He.pondent Bernard Krieger & Son, Inc., is anew York corporation with its offce and principal place of business located at 105 Orchard Street, New York, N.Y. Respondent A. Joseph Krieger is an offcer of the corporate respondent and formulates, controls, and dircets its policies, acts, and practices.

3. Subsequent to the effective date of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act on March 3, 1960, respondents have been 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 United States, of textile fiber products; and IUlve sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, textile fiber products which had been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised: delivered, transported and caused to be tra,nsported after shipment in commerce, textile fiber products, either in their original state or contained in other text.ile Libel' products; as the terms commerce" and "textile Gber products:: are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

4. Certain of such textile fiber products, to wit: handkerchiefs, were misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, or labeled with the infol1lltion required under Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Idmltification Act, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under such Act. 5. In justice to respondents it should be added that statements made by ,'respondent, A. Joseph Krieger, at the hearing indicate a desire on the part of respondents to comply fully with all of the requirements of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder. Respondents are jobbers only, not manufacturers, and it appears that the violations referred to above were due to respondents' reliance upon their sources of supply to label properJy all products requiring such Jabeling. 6. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents are in substantial competition with other corporations firms and individuals engaged in the sale of handkerchiefs in commerce. CONCLUSION The acts of respondents, as set forth above, are in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder, and constitute unfair and deceptive 474 FEDERAL TRADE COM nSSIOX DECISIO Decision and Order GO F. acts and practices and lU1fair methods of competition in conm1crce in violation of the Federal Trade Conlll1ission Act. The present proceeding is in t.he public interest.

ORDER It is 01Yle1' That. the respondents Bernard Krieger &. Son, Inc. a corporation and its offcers, and A. Joseph Krieger, individually and as an offeeT of said corporation, and respondents' representatives gents, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other de. vice, in connection with the introduction, delivery for introduction sale, advertising, or offering for sale., in commerce, or the transportation or causing t.o 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 transporteel, of textile fiber products which have been advertised or offered for sale in CQmllWrCe; or in connection 1With the sale, offering for sa..le, advertising, delivery, transportation, or ca.using to be transported, after shipment in commerce, of textile fiber products, whether in their original state or contained in other textile fiber products, a.s the terms "commerce" and "tea.'tile fiber products" are delined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

IVIisbranc1ing textile fiber products by failing to affx labels t.o such products showing each element of information required to 1m disclosed by Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. DECISION OF Tile COl\DfISSIQN AXD ORDER TO :FL1 REPORT OF C02\IPLIANCE Pursua.nt to Section 4.19 of the Commission s Rules of Practice effective July 21, 1961, tho initial decision of the hearing examiner shall on the 3d day of larch 1962, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly:

It is onlered That the respondents herein shan, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in data.il the lTUU1l1er and form in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist. , .

;iiii-LJTE MAID CORP. ET AL. 475 Complault