Jackson'S/Byrons Enterprises, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF JACKSON' SjBYRONS ENTERPRISES, INC.

CONSENT ORDER , ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket C-918. Complaint, July 1965 Decision July, 1965 Consent order requiring a Miami, Fla., operator of a chain of retail department stores, to cease violating the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act by falsely labeling, invoicing, and advertising its textile fiber products.

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 Jackson sjByrons Enterprises, Inc., a corporation, hereinafter referred to as the respondent has violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint, stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Jackson sjByrons Enterprises, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida. The respondent corporation with its office and principal place of business located at 29 N. W. Tenth Street, Miami, Florida, is engaged in the operation of a chain of retail department stores offering a wide variety of popular to medium-priced clothing and other department store merchandise. Operations under the control of the respondent corporation are conducted through wholly owned subsidiaries which are individually incorporated in Florida and comprise eleven retail stores in the Greater Miami area. The same officers of the respondent corporation are similarly officers in the same capacities in the eleven subsidiaries. PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act on March 3 , 1960, respondent has been and is now engaged in the introduction, delivery for sale 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; Complaint 68 F.TC.

and has sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, textile fiber products, which have been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; and has 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 contained in other textile fiber products, 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 were misbranded by respondent within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deor other-ceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, invoiced, advertised, wise identified as to the name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein.

Among such mishranded textie fiber products, but not limited thereto, were textile fiber products which were advertised in the Miami Herald, a newspaper published in Miami, Florida and distributed in interstate commerce. The said advertisement contains thatterms which represented, either directly or by implication, certain fibers are present in the said product, when such was not the case.

Among such terms, but not limited thereto, was the term "Silk ; the ad-Look" and the term "Look and Feel of Imported Silk" vertisement also described the product as 100% Estron. In truth and in fact, Estron is the trade name of the Tennessee Eastman Company for the fiber known as Acetate and the said textie fiber product did not have any silk in it nor was it imported. PAR. 4. Certain of said textile fiber products were falsely and deceptively advertised, in that the respondent, in making disclosures or implications as to the fiber content of such textile fiber products in written advertisements used to aid, promote and assist directly or indirectly in the sale or offering for sale of said products failed to set forth the required information as to fiber content, as specified by Section 4 (c) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. Among such textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were articles of wearing apparel which were falsely and deceptively advertised in the Miami Herald, a newspaper published in Miami in that the trade Florida, and distributed in int.erstate commerce, name of the fibers was used in lieu of the true generic name of the fibers in such articles.

JACKSON S/BYRONS ENTERPRISES, INC.

Complaint PAR 5. Certain of said textile fiber products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Textie Fiber Products Identification Act, in that they were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Among such textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were textile fiber products which were falsely and deceptively advertised in the Miami Herald, a newspaper published in Miami, Florida, and distributed in interstate commerce, in the following respects: a. A fiber trademark was used in advertising textile fiber products, namely ladies ' girdles, without a full disclosure of the fiber content information required by the said Act and the Rules and Regulations thereunder, in at least one instance in the said advertisement, in violation of Rule 41 (a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

b. A fiber trademark was used in advertising textile fiber products, namely, ladies ' girdles, containing lTIore than one fiber, and such fiber trademark did not appear in the required fiber content information in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fiber in plainly legible type, or lettering, of equal size and conspicuousness, in violation of Rule 41 (b) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

c. A fiber trademark was used in advertising textile fiber products, namely, ladies' sweaters, containing only one fiber, and such fiber trademark did not appear, at least once in the said advertisement, in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fiber, in plainly legible and conspicuous type, in violation of Rule 41 (c) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. d. The generic name of a fiber wac. used in advertising textile fiber products in such a manner as to be false, deceptive and misleading as to fiber content, and to indicate, directly or indirectly, that such textile fiber product was composed wholly or in part of such fiber, when such was not the case, in violation of Rule 41(d) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

Among such products, but not limited thereto, were textile fiber products, namely ladies ' dresses, advertised as "Silk Look" and The Look and Feel of Imported Silk " thus implying that such products were composed wholly or in part of silk, when in fact the products contained no silk.

e. Fiber connoting terms were used in the said advertisement in such a manner as to require disclosure of the information required by the Act and Regulations, and a11 parts of the required information were not stated in immediate conjunction with Decision and Order 68 F.

each other in legible and conspicuous type, or lettering, of equal size and prominence, in violation of Rule 42 (a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

Among such products, but not 1limited thereto, were textile fiber products, namely, sheets advertised as being made of "Finest White Combed Percale in a Blend of Precious Pima Yarns. " The terms Percale and Pima are fiber implying terms and the proposed respondent failed to set forth the true generic name of these fibers in conjunction therewith.

PAR. 6. The acts and practices of respondent 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 methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION AND ORDER The Commssion having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondent named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and the respondent 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 respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondent 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 respondent 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 ,J ackson s/Byrons Enterprises, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida, with its office and principal place of business located at 29 N. W. Tenth Street, in the city of Miami, State of Florida.

JACKSON S/BYRONS ENTERPRISES , INC.

Order 2. The Federal Trade Commssion has jurisdictio,+ of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered That respondent Jackson s/Byrons Enterprises Inc. , a corporation, and its officers, and respondent' representa tives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device in connection with the introduction manufacture for 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, advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported, after shipment in commerce, of any textile fiber product whether in its original state or contained in other textile fiber products, as the terms "commerce " and "textile fiber product" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identiication Act do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, invoicing, advertising or otherwise identifying such products as to the name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein. 2. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, invoicing, advertising or otherwise identiying such products by representing either directly or by implication, through the use of such terms as "Silk Look" and "Look and Feel of Imported Silk " or any other words or terms, that any fibers are present in a textile fiber product, when such is not the case except that nothing herein shah be construed to prevent the use of a non-deceptive statement in advertising that a textile fiber product has one or more of the characteristics of a material or fiber not present in the said product, if the advertisement contains aH of the required fiber content information as to such product.

3. Falsely and deceptively advertising textile fiber products by:

(a) Making any representations, by disclosure or by implication, as to the fiber contents of any textile fiber product in any written advertisement which is used to Order 68 FT. C.

aid, promote, 01' assist, directly 01' indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale of such textile fiber product, unless the same information required to be shown on the stamp, tag, label or other means of identification under Sections 4(b) (1) and (2) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act is contained in the said advertisement, except that the percentages of the fibers present in the textile fiber products need not be stated.

(b) Using a fiber trademark in advertisement without a full disclosure of the required content information in at least one instance in the said advertisement. (c) Using a fiber trademark in advertising textile fiber products containing more than one fiber, without such fiber trademark appearing in the required fiber content information in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fiber in plainly legible type, or lettering, of equal size and conspicuousness. (d) Using a fiber trademark in advertising textile fiber products containing only one fiber, without such fiber trademark appearing at least once in the advertisement, in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fiber, in plainly legible and conspicuous type. (e) Using a generic name of a fiber in advertising textile fiber products in such a manner as to be false, deceptive or misleading as to fiber content or to indicate, directly or indirectly, that such textile fiber products are composed wholly or in part of such fiber, when such is not the case.

(f) Failing to state all parts of the required information in immediate conjunction with each other in legible and conspicuous type, or lettering, of equal size and prominence, where textile fiber products are advertised in such a manner as to require disclosure of the information required by the Act and Regulations.

It is further ordered That the respondent herein shah, within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commssion a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with this order. AMERICAN MOTORS CORPORATION ET AL.

Complaint