Pacific Neckwear Co., Inc.

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

In THe Marrer oF PACIFIC NECKWEAR CO., INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTI- FICATION ACTS Docket C-509. Complaint, June 20, 1968—Decision, June 20, 1968 Consent order requiring a Los Angeles, Calif., importer and manufacturer of textile fiber products, to cease violating the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act by such practices as failing to affix the required tags or other means of identification to men’s ties, and by failing to maintain proper records showing the fiber content of products they manufactured. 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 Pacific Neckwear Co., Inc., a corporation, and Armin Mandel, individually and as an officer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of such 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 as follows:

ParacgrapH 1. Respondent Pacific Neckwear Co., Inc., is a corporation, organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business at 406 South Main Street, Los Angeles, California. Respondent Armin Mandel is president and treasurer of the corporate respondent. Said individual respondent formulates, directs and controls the acts, policies and practices of the corporate respondent, including the acts and practices hereinafter referred to. Said re- Decision and Order 62 F.T.C.

spondent has his office and principal place of business at 406 South Main Street, Los Angeles, California.

Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act on March 3, 1960, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction, manufacture for 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 have 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 transported, after shipment in commerce, textile fiber products, either in their original state or which were made of other textile fiber products so shipped in commerce; as the terms “commerce” and “textile fiber product” are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

Par. 8. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, or labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were men’s ties which had no stamp, tag, label or other means of identification on or affixed to such products. Par. 4. Respondents have failed to maintain proper records showing the fiber content of the textile fiber products manufactured by them, in violation of Section 6(a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Rule 39 of the Regulations promulgated thereunder. Par. 5. The acts and practices of respondents, as set forth above, were, and are, in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification 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. DeEcIsion 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 and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and the respondents having been served with notice of said determination and with a copy of the complaint PACIFIC NECKWEAR CO., INC., ET AL. 1397 1395 Decision and Order .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 respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to issue herein, 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 such 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. Respondent, Pacific Neckwear Co., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, with its office and principal place of business located at 406 South Main Street, in the city of Los Angeles, State of California.

Respondent and Armin Mandel is an officer of said corporation, and his address is the same as that of said corporation. 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 It is ordered, That respondents, Pacific Neckwear Co., Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Armin Mandel, 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 product” 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 749-537—67——-89 Complaint 62 F.T.C.

to be disclosed by Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

B. Failing to maintain records of fiber content of textile fiber products manufactured by them, as required by Section 6(a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identifiction Act and Rule 89 of the ’ Regulations thereunder.

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.