Brooklyn Quilting Corp.

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

IN THE ~IA TTER BROOKLYN QUILTING COHP. ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERlI.L TRADE CO~Il\fISSION, THE \VOOL PRODUCTS LABELING AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATIOi-T ACTS Docket C-1335. Com.plaint, Ma1l10 , 1.9GS-Decision, May 10 1968 Consent. order requiring a Brooldyn, X. , manufacturer of quilted and fabric materials to cease misbranding its ,vool and textile fiber products and failing to keep requireclrecorcls.

COl\IPL..:-UNT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act the ,Y 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, 11a ving reason to believe that Brooklyn Quilting Corp., a corporation, and Benj amin ZaudereI' Nathan Shotsky and David 1-1. Turkel, individually and as officers (Complaint 73 F. T.

of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the \Vool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and 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 follov, s :

PARAGRA.PH 1. Respondent Brooklyn Quilting Corp. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondents Benjamin Zauderer, Nathan Shotsky and David Turkel are officers of said corporate respondent. They formulate direct and control the acts, practices and policies of said corporate respondent.

Respondents are engaged in the manufacture and sale of wool and textile fiber products including quilted fabrics with their ofi1ce and principal place of business located at 135-139 North 11th Street Brooklyn, New York.

-\.R. 2. Respondents, now and for some time last past, have manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced into C0111merce sold, transported, distributed, delivered for shipment, shipped, and \V 001offered for sale in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the 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 "\V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they "-ere falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified with respect to the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. Among such 1nisbranded wool products, but not limited thereto was batting stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified by respondentsas acetate, whereas in truth 'and in fact, said products contained woolen fibers together-r with substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than represented.

PAR. 4. Certain said wool products ",'ere 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 \V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

BROOKLYN QUILTING CORP. ET AL. 927 925 Complaint Among suc.h misbranded "001 products, but not limited thereto, ,vas 'a wool product with a label on or affixed thereto which:h failed to disclose the percentage of the total fiber "eight of the said wool product exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5 per centum of the total fiber weight, of (1) wool; (2) reprocessed "001; (3) reused wool; (4) each fiber other ,than wool, when said percentage by weight of such fiber was 5 per centum or more; and (5) the aggregate of .all other fibers.

PAR. 5. The acts and practices of the. respondents as set forth above "'ere, and are, in violation of the ,Y 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and t11e Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, and now c.onstitute, unfair methods of competition and unfair and. deceptive acts and practices, in commerce ",within the meaning the Federal Trade Commission Act. 0 PAR.

6. R.respondents are nm" and for some time last past. have been engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction, manufacture for introduction, sale, advertising, and offering for sale in commerce and the importation into the United States, of textile fiber products; and have sold, offered for sale ach' ertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, textile fiber products ,,-which had been advertised or ofiered for sale in commerce; and have sold, offered for sale advertisec1 delivered, transported and eausecl to be transported, after shipment in commerce, textile fiber products, either in their original state or c.contained in other textile fiber products; as the terms commerce and "textile fiber product" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

PAR. 7. Certain textile fiber products "ere misbranded by respondents within the ~ntent and meaning of Section 4 (a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification ~L\.ct and the Rules and Regulations pro~ mulgated thereunder in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped tagged, labeled, invoiced, advertised, or other"ise identified as to the name or amounts of the constituent fibers contained therein. Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited there- , were quilted fabrics with labels stating "acetfite" thereby representing the said quilting to be composed entirely of 'aeetate, whereas, in truth and in fact, such products contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers other than as represented. PAR. 8. Certain of the textile fiber products "ere. misbranded by respondents in that they ,,-ere not stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified to show each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act , Decision and Order 73 F.

and in the manner and form prescribed by the R,ules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products but not limited thereto, were quilted fabrics with labels which failed: (1) To disclose the true percent,age of the fibers present by "eight; and (2) To disclose the true generic names of the fibers present. \R. 9. Respondents have failed to maintain proper records showing the fiber content of the textile fiber products l11'anufactured by them in violation of Section 6 of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Rule 3D of the Regulations promulgated thereunder. PAR. 10. The acts and practices of respondents, as set forth in Paragraphs Seven, Eight and Nine .above were, and are, in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules -and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constituted, and no-w constitute- unfair methods of competition and unfair' and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, under 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 ,,-hieh the Bureau of Textiles and Furs proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, "ould charge respondents ",ith violation of the Federal Trade Con1l11ission Act, the ,Y 001 Products Labeling Act of 1930 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 all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the afoi'esaic1 draft of complaint, 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 alleged in such complaint, and "waivers and other provisions as required by the Commission s Rules; and The Commission having: thereafter considered the matter and having determined that it had reason to believe that the respondents have L-violated the said Acts, and that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, and having thereupon accepted the executed conse,nt agreement and placed such agreement on the public record for n period of thili.y (30) days, no'\" in further conformity with the. BROOKLYN QUILTING CORP. ET AL. 929 Decision and Order procedure prescribed in S 2.34:(b) of its Rules, the Conllnission hereby issues its complaint, makes the follm\ing jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Brooklyn Quilting Corp. is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its office and principal place of business located at 135-139 North 11th Street, Brooklyn, New York-. Respondents Benjamin Zauderer, Nathan Shotsky and David H. Turkel are officers of said corporation and their 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 iB 01Yle1' That respondents Brooklyn Quilting Corp. , a corporation, and its officers, and Benjamin Zauderer, Nathan Shotsky and David H. Turkel, individually and as officers of said corporation and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection 'With the introduction, or manufacture for introduction, into commerce, or the offering for sale, sale, transportation, distribution, delivery for shipment or shipment, in commerce, of wool products, as "commerce~' and wool product" are defined in the ,Y 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding such products by:

1. Falsely and deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, or otherwise identifying such products as to the character or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. 2. Failing to securely affix to, or place on, each such product ;1 stamp, tag, label, or other means of iclentificationshowing in a dear and conspicuous manner each element of information required to be disc lased by Section 4 ( a) (2) of the ,V 001 Prod uets Labeling Act of 1939.

It is juTthM' oi'del'ed That respondents Brooklyn Quilting Corp. a corporation, and its officers, and Benj ainm Zauderer, Nathan Shotsky and David H. Turkel, individually and as officers of said corporation and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in c.onneetion IVith the introduction, delivery for introduction, manufacture. for introduction, sale advertising, or offering for sale, in commerce.e, or the transportation or causing to be transported in conm1erce, or the importation into the ISyllabus 73 F.

United Stflltes, of any textile fiber products; 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 COl11111erce, 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 Identification Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. l\iisbranding textile fiber prod nets by: 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. Failing to affix a stamp~ tag, label, or other means or identification to each such product 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.

B. Failing to maintain and preserve proper records shmying the fiber content of the textile fiber products manufactured by said respondents as required by Section 6 of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Rule 39 of the Regulations promulgated thereunder.

It is fu1'thel' o1Ylered That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions. I tis /1IPthe1' oJ'(le1'ed That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) clays after service upon them of this order, fiJe with the Commission a report in "\writing setting forth in detail the Inanner and form in "hieh they have complied ,with this order. IN THE l\L-\.TTER OF JONATHAN LOGAN, INC. , TRA.DING AS DAVIS SPORTS,VEAR COl\IP ANY DIVISION ET AL. CONSENT ORDER , ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COl\fl\IISSION AND TI-IE 'VOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Dooket C-1336. Complaint, Ma,y 16, 1968-Decision, May 16, 1968 Consent order requiring a North Bergen, N.J., manufacturer of women s sportswear to cease misbranding and falsely guaranteeing its wool products. DAVIS SPORTSWEAR CO. DIVISION ET AL. 931 930 Complaint COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the 1V 001 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 Jonathan Logan, Inc. , a Coil)Oration trading as Davis Sports"Near Company Division, and David ",V. Goren, individually and as general manager of said Division, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the ,Y 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939, 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 follmvs PAR.:-WRAPH 1. Respondent Jonathan Logan, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware. Respondent Jonathan Logan, Inc. trades, among others, under the name of Davis Sportswear Company Division.

Respondent David 'V. Goren is the general manager of the Davis Sportswear Company Division of Jonathan Logan, Inc. fie directs the acts and practices of said Division, including those hereinafter setforth.Respondents are engaged in the Inanufacture and sale of \1'001 products, including \Yomen s benchwarmers and storm coats, \Tith the office and principal place of business of respondent.J onathan Logan, IIlC. located at 3901 Liberty Avenue, North Bergen, Xe\y .Jersey. The office and principal place of business of respondent David ,V. Goren, general nlanager of Davis Sports\\-ear Coll::pany Division is located at ':1: l-Iampshire Street, La\vrence, :Jlassachusetts. PAR. 2. Hespondents now -and for some time last past, have manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced into commerce sold, transporteel, distributed, delivered for shipmeJlt, shipped, and offered for sale, in commerce, as "commerce if) defined in the ,Y 001 Products Labeling ~\ct of H);3D, ,yool products as "\':001 products ~~ is defined therein.

PAR. 3. Certain of said "-001 products were misbranded by the respondents \within the intent and meaning of Section 4 ( a) (1) of the \Y 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and Rules and Regulations p1'O- Inu1gatecl thereunder, in that they \were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, or othenyise. identified with respect to the charact€r .and amount. of the constituent fibers contained therein. Among such misbranded wool products, but. not Ijmitec1 thereto ere Indies' coats stamped, tagged, labeled, or other\"ise identified by Decision and Order 73 F.

respondents as 85 percent 1V 001, and 15 percent Nylon, ~whereas in truth and in fact, said products contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fiber than represented.

PAR. 4. Certain of said wool products were further misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identifieclas required under the provisions of Section 4 (a) (2) of the ,Y 001 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 ,,-ith a label on or affixed thereto which failed disclose the percentage of the total fiber ,,'eight of the said 'Tool product, exclusive or ornamentation not exceeding 5 per centum of the total fiber 'Teight, of (1) 'wool; (2) reprocessed ""001; (3) reused wool; (4) each fiber other than ,,"ool ~ ",hen said percentage by weight of such fiber "as 5 per centum or more; and (5) the. aggregate of all other fi bel's.

PA'R. 5. Respondents have furnished raise guaranties that their ""001 products welt~ not misbranded in violation of Section 9 (b) of the \V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939.

PAR. 6. The nets a.ncl practices of the respondents as set forth ~tbove IYere, and are, in violation or the ,V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the R.u les and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, and no,,- constitute, unrair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices, in commerce within the meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION ~\.XD ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an illyestigation or certain acts and practices of the respondents named in the caption hereof, and the respondents having been furnished thereafter ,with copy of a draft of complaint which the Bure.an or Textiles and Furs proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and IThich if issued by the Commission, would charge respondents ,,'ith violation of the Federal Trade Con1Jllission Act and the \V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission hayinr: thereafter pxecuted an a nTeement containing a consent order. an nclmission bv in the afore-the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth said (haft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agree- DAVIS SPORTSWEAR CO. DIVISJON ET AL. 933 930 Decision and Order constitute anment is for settlement purposes only and does not alleged1 inadmission by respondents that the law has been violated as such complaint, and \yaivel's and other provisions as required by the Commission s Rules; and The Commission having thereafter considered the matter and having determined that it hadl'reason to believe that the respondents have violated the said Acts, and that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, and having thereupon accepted the executed consent agreement and placed such agreement on the public record for ::to period of thirty (30) days now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in S 2.34 (b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby if-;sues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Jonathan Logan, Inc., trading as Davis Sports\vear Company Division, is a corporation organized~ existing: ,uld doing business under and by virtue of the la,ys of the State of Dela ,yare '.with its office and principal place of business located at 3901 Liberty A ven ue, North Bergen, New Jersey.

Respondent David 1V. Goren is general mannger of Davis Sportsoffce and prin-\vear Company Division of Jonathan Logan, with his ~ipal place of business located at -:I: I-Iampshire Street, La ',Tenee, :Jlassachusetts.

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 onlered That respondents J onat-han Logan, Inc., ft corporation tl'nding as Davis Sports\Year Company Division, or under any other name and its officers, and David ,V. Goren, individually and as general manager of Davis Sports""ear Company Division, and respondents representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any cor- 111anu- porate or other c1eyice, in connection ,with the introduction or hcture. for introduction, into commerce, or the offering for sale, sale , in transportation, distributio, delivery for shipment or shiprnent OmmeTCC, of \1'001 products, as "commerce" and "'1'001 product" are IleJ1nec1 in the ,Y 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939, do fortIn-with cease and desist from misbranding such products by: 1. Falsely and deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, or otherwise identifying such products as to the character 01' amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. 934 .FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS IOomplaint 73 F.

2. Failing to securely affix to, or place on, each such product a :stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification showing in a clear and conspicuous manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(a) (2) of the 1Yool Products Labeling Act of 1939.That Jonathan Logan, Inc. , a corporation 1 t is furthe'J' o7'dej' trading as Davis .sportswear Company Division, or under any other 11ame, and its officers, and David ,V. Goren, individually and re-general manager of Davis Sportswear Company Division, and :spondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from furnishing a false guaranty that any \\001 product is not misbranded under the vV 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939, and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, when there is reason to believe that any wool product so guaranteed may be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in commerce.

It is further ordel'ed That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions. It is further' ordej' 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. IN THE 1\1.tI.TTER OF E. 1-1. TEASLEY & CO., INC., ET AL.

CONSENT onder, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE C03Il\IISSION ACT , May 16, 1968 Docket C-l:337. Complaint, May 16, 1968-Decision Consent order requiring a Dallas, Texas, manufacturer of tents, tarpaulins and other product.s to cease fictitiously pricing its merchandise in catalogs ::md furnishing retailers with means of deceptive pricing. C03IPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal believe that E. H. Teasley & Trade Commission, ha.ving reason to Co., Inc., a corporation, and Eugene H. Teasley, individually and as an officer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents have violated the provisions of said Act, and it appearing to the Com- ,, E. H. TEASLEY & CO. , INC., ET AL. 935 934 'Complaint mission 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 E. 1-1. Teasley & Co. , Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas, with its principal office and place of business located at 509 Corinth, Dallas, Texas. Respondent Eugene H. Te.asley is an officer of said corporation. He formulates, directs and controls the acts and practices of the corporate respondent, including the acts and practices hereinafter set forth. His business address is the same as that of the corporate respondent. PAR. 2. Respondents are now, and for some time last past have been engaged in the manufacture, advertising, o:ffe.ring for sale, sale and distribution of tents, tarpaulins and other merchandise to retailers for resale to the public.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents now cause, and for some time last past have caused, said products hen sold, to be shipped from their place of business in the State of Texas to retailers thereof located in various States of the United States and maintain, and at all times mentioned herein have maintained, a substantial course of trade in said products in commerce, as commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act. PAR. 4. Respondents, for the purpose of inducing the purchase of their products, have engaged in the practice of using fictitious prices in connection therewith by the following method and means: By distributing, or causing to be distributed to retailers and others catalogs which depict and describe their aforesaid products and contain a stated price for each.

In the manner aforesaid respondents thereby represent, directly or indirectly, that the amounts shown are respondents' bona fide estimate of the actual retail prices of said products in respondents' trade area and that they do not appreciably exceed the highest prices at which substantial sales of said products are made at retail in said trade area. In truth and in fact said amounts shown are not respondents' bona fide estimate of the actual retail prices of said products in respondents trade area and they appreciably exceed the highest prices at which substantial sa.les of said products are made at retail in said trade. area. Therefore, the statements and representations set forth above are false., Inisleac1ing -and deceptive.

PAR. 5. By the aforesaid acts and practices, respondents place in the hands of retailers the means and instrumentalities by and , p, \\ 936 FEDERAL TRADE COl\fMISSION DECISIONS Decision and Order 73 F.

through which they may mislead the public as to the usual and regular retail price of said products.

PAR. 6. In the course and conduct of their business and at all times mentioned herein, respondents have been engaged in substantial competition, in commerce, with corporations, firms and individuals in the sale of products of the same general kind and nature as those sold by respondents.

PAR. 7. The use by the respondents of the aforesaid fa.lse, misleading and deceptive statements, representations and practices, has had, and now has, the capacity and tendency to mislead members of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said statements and representations ",-ere and are true and into the purchase of substantial quantities of respondents' products by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief.

PAR. 8. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, were and are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents competitors and constituted, and neff constitute, unfair methods of competition in commerce and unfair and deceptive. acts and practices in commerce, in violation of Section ;) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION .:\ND ORDER The Federal Trade Commission 11a ,-ing initiated an iln~estigation of certain acts and practices of the respondents named in the caption hereof nc1 the respondents having been furnished thereafter ,with a copy or a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Decepti,-e Practices proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued b~- the Commjssion ould charge respondents \\-ith violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission 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 respondents that the 1ft" has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and "\vaivers and other provisions as required by the Commission s Rules; and The Commission having thereafter considered the matter and having determined that it had reason to believe that the respondents have violated the said Act, and that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, and ha.ving thereupon accepted the exeellted c.onsent agreement and placed such agreement on the public record for E. H. TEASLEY CO. INC. , ET AL. 937 934 Decision and Order a period of thirty (30) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in S 2.34 (b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues ~ts complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent E. 1-1. Teasley & Co. Ine., is a corporation organied existing and doing business under a.nel by virtue of the la,yS of the State of Texas, with its office and principal place of business located at 500 Corinth, Dallas, Texas.

Respondent Eugene Ii:. Teasley 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 or this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER I t is ordered That respondents, E. H. Teasley 8: Co., Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Eugene 1-1. Teasley, individually and as an offcer or said corporation, and respondents' agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the advertising, offering for sale, sale or distribution of tents, tare/Rulins or other merchandise, in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act. do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Achertising, disseminating or distributing any purported retail price unless (a) it is respondents' bona fide estimate of the actual retail price of the product in the area "here respondents do business and (b) it does not appreciably exceed the highest price at. \"hic11 sllbstn,ntial sales or said product are made in said trade area.

2. :Misrepresenting in any manner the prices at. ,which respondents merchandise is sold at retftil.

3. Furnishing to others any means or instrumentalities \\'hereby the pl1rehnsing public may be misled as to the retail prices of re~ponc1ents' products.

It 'is .hl'i'theJ' o)'dered Thftt the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribnte it cop~' of this order to eneh of its operating divisions. 1 t is fclJ'thcl' o'l'del'ed. That the respondents herein. shall. \within sixty (GO) days after service upon them or this order, file. with the Commission a report in l"writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in \which they have complied with this order. ~1 S-8~5--72---- , .

Complain t 73 F.