Angora Corporation Of America

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

IN THE MATTER OF ANGORA CORPORATION OF AMERICA ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE CO:\NIISSION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1250. Complaint, June 30, 1967-Dec' ision, June 30, 1967 Consent order requiring a :Kew York City importer and processor of fabrics to cease misbranding and falsely guaranteeing its wool products. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Angora Corporation Of America, a corporation, and Sam Flomenhaft, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regubtions promulgated under the Wool Products Labehng Act of J939, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the pubhc interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Angora Corporation Of America is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under ano by virtue of the laws of the State of "ew York. Its offce and principal place of business is located at 29 West 35th Street, New York New York.

Individual respondent Sam Flomenhaft is an offcer of said corporation. He formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies of the said corporation. His oflec and principal place of business is the same as that of said corporation. The respondents import and sell, among other items, mohair and wool yarns.

ANGORA CORPORATION OF AMERICA ET AL. 1595 1594 Complaint PAR. 2. Respondents now, and for sometime last past, have introduced into commerce, sold, transported, distributed, delivered for shipment, shipped and offered for sale in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in said Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 wool products as "wool product" is defined therein. PAR. 3. Certain of said wool products were misbranded by the respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a) (1) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified with respect to the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained therein.

Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto were yarns stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified by respondents as " 100% Mohair" and "100% Italian Mohair whereas in truth and in fact, such products contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than as represented. PAR. 4. Certain of said wool products were further misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified as required under the provisions of Section 4 (a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto, was a wool product viz. yarn, with a label on or affxed thereto which failed to disclose the percentage of the total fiber weight of the said wool product, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5% of the total fiber weight, of (1) wool; (2) reprocessed wool; (3) reused wool; (4) each fiber other than wool, when said percentage by weight of such fiber \Vas 5 % or more; and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers.

PAR. 5. Certain of said wool products were misbranded by respondents in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that the term "Mohair was used in lieu of the word "Wool" in setting forth the required fiber content information on labels affixed to wool products when certain of the fibers described as "Mohair" were not entitled to such designation, in violation of Rule 19 of the Rules and Regulations under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939. PAR. 6. Respondents have furnished a false guaranty that their Decision and Order 71 F.

wool products were not misbranded, when they knew, or had reason to believe, that the said wool products so falsely guaranteed might be introduced, sold, transported, or distributed in commerce, in violation of Section 9 of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

PAR. 7. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth above, ,ve1'e, and are, in violation of the \\Tool Products Labeling Act of J 939 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, 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 Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admissions by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement 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 said Acts, and having determined that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, hereby issues its complaint, accepts saiel agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent Angora Corporation Of America is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Xew York, with its office and principal place of business located at 29 West 35th Street, New York, Xew York.

Respondent Sam FJomenhaft is an offcer of said corporation and his address is the same as that of said corporation. ANGORA CORPORATION OF AMERICA ET AL. 1597 1594 Order 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 Angora Corporation Of America a corporation, and its offcers, and Sam Flomenhaft, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connecbon with the introduction into commerce or the offering for sale, sale, transportation, distribution, delivery for shipment or shipment in commerce, of \\'001 products, as "commerce" and "wool product" are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from: A. Misbranding such products by:

1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, or otherwise identifying such products as to the character or amount of constituent fibers included therein. 2. Failing to securely affx to, or place on, each sach product a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identiication sho\ving in a clear and conspicuous manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939. 3. Affxing thereto labels whereon the term "Mohair is used in lieu of the word "\Vool " in setting forth the required information, unless the percentage of fibers designated as "Mohair" are entitled to that designation and are present in at least the amount stated. B. Furnishing a false guaranty that their wool products are not misbranded under the provisions of the Wool Products Labeling Act, where there is reason to believe that the wool products so guaranteed may be introduced, sold, transported or djstl'ibuted in commerce.

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. Complaint 71 F.