Cover Girl of Miami, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF COVER GIRL OF MIAMI, I",C., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket C-l081. Complaint, July 19GB-Decision, July 6, 1966 Consent order requiring a Miami, Fla., dress manufacturer to cease misbranding and falsely guaranteeing its textile fiber products in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. 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 Cover Girl of Miami Inc., a corporation, and Irving Fedler, individual11y and as a prodaction manager of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have 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 it in respect thereof would be in the public interest hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Cover Girl of Miami, Inc., is a corpo- COVER GIRL OF MIAMI , INC., ET AL.

Complaint ration organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida.

Individual respondent Irving Fedler is the production manager of the corporate respondent and directs and controls the acts and practices of the corporate respondent complained of herein. Respondents are manufacturers of textile fiber products namely, ladies' dresses, with their offce and principal place of business located at 490 KW" 26th Street, :YIiami, Florida. PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Textie 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 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 have 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 contained in other textile fiber products, as the terms "commerce " and "textile fiber product" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, PAR. 3. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents' within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a) of the Textie Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, invoiced, advertised or otherwise identified as to the name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were textile fiber products, namely ladies' dresses, which were labeled 77,/e Rayon 23,/0 Acetate " whereas in truth and in fact, such textie fiber products contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than represented on the label. PAR. 4. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents in that there was not on or affxed to said textile fiber products any stamp, tag, label or other means of identiflcation showing the required information in violation of Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. PAR. 5. Respondents have furnished their customers with false guaranties that certain of their textile fiber products were not Dccision and Order 70 F.

misbranded or falsely invoiced by falsely representing in writing on invoices that repondents has filed a continuing guaranty under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act with the Federal Trade Commission, in violation of Rule 38 (d) of the Rules and Regulations under said Act and Section IO (b) of such Act. PAR. 6. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded in violation of the Textie Fiber Products Identification Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that samples, swatches, or specimens of textile fiber products used to promote or effect sales of such textile fiber products, were not labeled to show their respective fiber contents and other required information, in violation of Rule 21 (a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. PAR. 7. The acts and practices of respondents as set forth here were in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations 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. DECISION AND ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondents named in the caption hereof, and the respondents having been furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Textiles and Furs proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order', an admission by the respondents of a1l the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondents that the law has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission s rules; and The Commission, having reason to believe that the respondents have violated the said Acts, and having determined that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, hereby issues its complaint, accepts said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: COVER GIRL OF MIAMI , INC., ET AL.

Order 1. Respondent Cover Girl of :\iami, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida with its offce and principal place of business located at 490 NW" 26th Street, Miami, Florida. Respondent Irving Fedler is the production manager of the 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 01'de1' That respondents Cover Girl of :\iami, Inc" a corporation and its offcers and Irving Fedler, individually, and as producbon manager of said corporate respondent, 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 original state or contained in other textile fiber products, as the terms " commerce" and "textile fiber product" arc defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: A, Misbranding textile fiber products by: 1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, invoicing, advertising, or other'wjse identifying such products as to the name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein.

2. Failing to affx labels to such textile fiber products showing in a clear, legible and conspicuous manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

3, Failing to affx labels showing the respective f,ber Complaint 70 F.

content and other required information to samples swatches and specimens of textie fiber products subject to the aforesaid Act which are used to promote or effect sales of such textile fiber products, B. Furnishing false guaranties that textile fiber products are not misbranded or otherwise misrepresented under the provisions of the Textie Fiber Products Identification Act. 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 settng forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order.