Mandel Bros & Rosenberg, Inc

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

IN Tile MATTER OF MANDEL BROS. & ROSENBERG, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE FUR PIWDUCTS LABELING AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-l1,.96. Cornplnint, Feb. 20, 196B-Decision, Feb. 20, 1969 Consent order requiring a New York City clothing manufacturer to cease misbranding and false invoicing its fur products and misbranding its wool products.

COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fur Products Labeling 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 , a corporation to believe that Mandel Bros. & Rosenberg, Inc. and Albert Mandel and David Rosenberg, individually and as offcers of said corporation, and Martin G. Mandel, individually and as general manager of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Wool 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 follows: P ARAGRAPII 1. Respondent Mandel Bros. & Rosenberg, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. 346 Complaint Respondents Albert Mandel and David Rosenberg are offcers of the corporate respondent. Respondent Martin G. Mandel is the general manager of the corporate respondent, Mandel Bros. & Rosenberg, Inc. They formulate, direct and control the acts, pracrespondent including thosetices and policies of the corporate hereinafter set forth.

products and wool Respondents are manufacturers of fur products with their offce and principal place of business located at 262 West 38th Street, New York, New York. PAR. 2. Respondents are now and for some time last past have been engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in the manufacture for introduction into commerce, and in the sale advertising, and offering for sale in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution in commerce, of fur products; and offered for salehave manufactured for sale, sold, advertised, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of furs which have been shipped and received product"in commerce, as the terms "commerce fur" and "fur are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were not labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products without labels.

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with thc Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder inasmuch as required item numbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondents in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under such Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products covered by invoices which failed to show the true animal name of the fur used in such fur products.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they Complaint 75 F.T.C.

were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) The term “natural’’ was not used on invoices to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(g) of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 7. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. Par. 8. Respondents, now and for some time last past, have manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced into commerce, sold, transported, distributed, delivered for shipment, shipped and offered for sale in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 wool products as “wool product” is defined therein.

Par. 9. 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 wool products labeled or tagged by respondents as 100 percent wool when, in truth and in fact, said products contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than as represented.

Par. 10. Certain of said wool products were 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, were wool products with labels on or affixed thereto which failed to disclose the percentage of the total fiber weight of the said wool products, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5 per centum of the total fiber weight, of (1) wool; (2) reprocessed wool; (3) 346 Decision and Order reused wool; (4) each fiber other than wool, when said percentage by weight of such fiber was 5 pcr centum or more; and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers.

PAR. 11. 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 the following respects: A. Certain wool products composed of two or more sections of different fiber composition, were not labeled in such a manner as to disclose the fiber composition of each section and such form of marking was necessary to avoid deception in violation to Rule 23 (b) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. B. The fiber content of interlinings contained in garments was not set forth separately and distinctly as a part of the required information on the stamps, tags, labels or other marks of identification of such garments, in violation of Rule 24(b) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 12. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth in Paragraphs Nine, Ten and Eleven above were, and are in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated 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 with 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, the Fur Products Labeling 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 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 law has been Decision and Order 75 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 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 a period of thirty (30) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in 34(b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Mandel Bros. & Rosenberg, Inc. , 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 262 West 38th Street, New York New York.

Respondents Albert Mandel and David Rosenberg are offcers of and respondent Martin G. Mandel is general manager 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 ordered That respondents Mandel Bros. & Rosenberg, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and Albert Mandel and David Rosenberg, individually and as offcers of said corporation, and Martin G. Mandel, individually and as the General Manager of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, into commerce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce of any fur product; or in connection with the manufacture for sale, sale, advertising, offering for sale transportation or distribution of any fur product which is made in whole or part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

....

LOU,- '-, '-.., A. Misbranding fur products by:

1. Failng to affx labels to fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Failing to set forth on labels the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices as the term "invoice is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Failing to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on invoices under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

3. Failng to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to fur products.

It is further ordered That respondents Mandel Bros. & Rosenberg, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and Albert Mandel and David Rosenberg, individually and as offcers of said corporation and Martin G. Mandel, individually and as the general manager of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device connection with the 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 Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding wool 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 affx 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 Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

3. Failing to set furth required information, on labels Complaint 75 F.

attached to wool products consisting of two or more sections of different fiber content, in such a manner as to show the fiber content of each section in all instances where such marking is necessary to avoid deception. 1. Failng to set forth separately and distinctly as part of the required information on the stamp, tag, label or other mark of identification of a garment which contains an interlining, the fiber content of such interlining as required by Rule 24 (b) of the Rules and Regulations under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

It is further ordered That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of the order to each of its operating divisions.

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.