Regent Corset Co.

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

IN THE MATTER OF REGENT CORSET CO. ET AL, CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket 1370. Complaint, July 10, 1968-Decision, July 10, JrJ68 Consent order requiring a North Bergen, N. , manufacturer of girdles and other textile products to cease misbranding and hlsely guaranteeing its textile fiber products and failing to maintain required records. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act REGENT CORSET CO. , ET AL. 137 136 Complaint 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 Regent Corset Co. , a corporation, and Irving Kurs and Jerome Bienenfeld, individually and as offcers 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 Regent Corset Co. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. Its offce and principal place of business is located at 517 - 74th Street, in the city of North Bergen, State of New Jersey.

Respondents Irving Kurs and Jerome Bienenfeld are offcers of said corporate respondent. They formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of said corporation. Their address is the same as that of said corporation.

Respondents are manufacturers of textile fiber products. PAR. 2. Respondents arc now, 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 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 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 respondent.s within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a) 01' the Textile 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 the constituent fibers contained therein.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited Decision and Order 74 F. T. thereto, were textile fiber products, namely girdles, with labels on or affxed thereto which set forth the fiber content of such products as "70% nylon, 20% cotton, 10% rubber " whereas, in truth and in fact, said products contained different fibers and amounts of fibers than represented.

PAR. 4. Certain of the textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified to show each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (b) of the Textie Fiber Products Identification Act, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were girdles with labels which failed, (1) To disclose the true percentage of the fibers present by weight; and (2) To disclose the true generic n me of the fibers present. PAR. 5. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Id.entification Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that sectional disclosure of textie fiber products was not used Oll labels where the products were composed of two or more sections of different fiber composition, and such sectional disclosure was necessary to avoid deception, in violation of Rule 25 (b) of thc aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 6. 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. 7. Respondents furnished false guaranties that certain of their textile fiber products were not misbranded or falsely invoiced in violation of Section 10 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

PAR. 8. 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 methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices, in commerce, UDder the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISIO~ AND ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investiga- REGEKT CORSET CO. , ET AL. 139 136 Order tion 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 Texties 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 IdentificatioTI Act; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission hy the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreen;ent is for settlement purposes only atid 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 Commissions 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 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 recol-d for 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 its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the follo\ving order: 1. Respondent Regent Corset Co. is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 517 - 74th Street, city of North Bergen, State of New Jersey.

Respondents Irving Kurs and Jerome Bienenfeld are offcers 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 is oydered That respondents Regent Corset Co. a corporation, and its offcers, and Irving Kurs and Jerome Bienenfeld individually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, de- Order 74 F.

livery 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 L'united States of textile fiber products; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported, of any textie 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 textie 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 Textie Fiber Products Identification Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. :visbranding textile fiber products 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 labels to textie fiber products showing each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

3. Failing to make a disclosure on the required label on or affxed to textile fiber products composed of two or more sections of different fiber composition, in such a manner as to show the fiber composition of each section in alj instances where such disclosure is necessary to avoid deception.

B. Failing to maintain and preserve for at least three years proper records showing the fiber content of textile fiber products manufactured by them, as required by Section 6 (a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Rule 39 of the Regulations promulgated thereunder. It is furthe,. O1'dered That respondents Regent Corset Co. , a corporation, and its offcers, and Irving Kurs and Jerome Bienenfeld, individually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from furnishing a false guaranty that any textile fiber product is not misbranded or falsely invoiced. It is further ordered That the respondent corporation shall STANDARD OIL CO. (INDIANA) ET AL 141 141 Complaint forthwith distribute a copy of this Order to each of its operating divisions.

It is furtheo' o'l'dated 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.