Sydell Woronoff

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

IN THE MATTER OF SYDELL WORONOFF TRADING AS SYDELL GOWNS CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING, THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION, AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Do(:ket C 1505. Complaint, Mat. 969--Decision, Mat-1S, J96.t Consent order requiring a New York City retailer of ladies ' ready-tn-wear garments to cease misbranding its wool, textile flber, and fur products and falsely invoicing its fur products. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, the Textile Fibcr Products Identification Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Sydell W oronoff, an individual trading as Sydcll Gowns, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof Complaint 75 F.

would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Sydell WoronofT is an individual trading under the name of Sydell Gowns. Respondent is engaged in business as a retailer of ladies ready-to-wear garments, including wool, textile and fur products with his offce and principal place of business located at 4 West 56th Street, New York, New York.

PAR. 2. Respondent, now and for some time last past, has introduccd 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 respondent 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 without labels, or with labcls on or affxed thereto, which failed to disclose the percentage of the total fibcr weight of the said wool products, exclusive of ornamentation not cxceeding five per centum of said total fiber wcight of (1) wool; (2) reprocessed wool; (3) reused wool; (4) each fiber other than wool, when said pcrccntage by weight of such fibcr was five per centum or more; and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers.

PAR. 4. Respondent, now and for some time last past, and with the intent of violating the provisions of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, after shipmcnt to him in commerce of wool products, has, in violation of Section 5 of said Act, removcd or caused or participated in the removal of the stamp, tag, label or other identification required by said Act to be affxed to such wool products, prior to the time such wool products were sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer, without substituting therefor labels conforming to Section 4(a) (2) of said Act. PAR. 5. The acts and practices of the respondent as set forth 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 com- 421 t.complaint merce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 6. Respondent is now and for some time last past has been engaged in the introduction, delivery 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, which have been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; and has 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. 7. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by respondent in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified as required under the provisions of Section 4(b) of the Textie Fiber Products Identification Act, and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, was a textile fiber product with a label which failed: 1. To disclose the true generic name of the fibers present; and 2. To disclose the percentages of such fibers by weight. PAR. 8. Respondent, in violation of Section 5(a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act has caused and participated in the rcmoval of, prior to the time textile fiber products subject to the provisions of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act were sold and delivcrcd to the ultimate consumer, labels required by the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act to be affxed to such products, without substituting therefor labcls conforming to Section 4 of said Act and in the manner prescribed by Section" (b) of said Act.

PAR. 9. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent as herein alleged in Paragraphs Seven and Eight above, were, and are in violation of the Textie Fiber Products Identification Act 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. PAR. 10. Respondent is now and for some time last past has been engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in the sale Complaint 75 F.

advertising, and offering for sale in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution in commerce, of fur products; and has sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of furs which have been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 11. 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 were fur products without labels, or with labels which failed to give any of the information required under the various subsections of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 12. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: 1. The term "natural" was not used on labels to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rulc 19(9) of said Hules and Regulations.

2. Required item numbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 13. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by respondent in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that respondent failed to issue invoices to purchasers of said fur products containing all the information required under said Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

PAR. 14. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: 1. The term "natural" was not used on invoices to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed 4::1 ueelMUIJ allu VIUo;.L 19 (g) ofor otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule said Rules and Regulations.

2. Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Rcgulations. PAR. 15. Respondent, in violation of Section 3 (d) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, has removed and has caused and participated in the removal of, prior to the time fur products subject to the provisions of said Act were sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer, labels required by the Fur Products Labeling Act to be affxed to such products, without substituting therefor labels conforming to Section 4 of said Act and in the manner prescribed by Section 3 (e) of said Act. PAR. 16. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent, as herein alleged in Paragraphs Eleven through Fifteen 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. DECISION AND ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondent named in the caption hereof, and the respondent 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 respondent with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, the Textie Fiber Products Identification Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act; and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondent 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 respondent 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 respondent has 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 agree- Decision and Order 75 F.

ment 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 Sydell Woronoff is an individual trading under the name of Sydell Gowns, with his offce and principal place of business located at 4 West 56th Street, New York, New York. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered That respondent Sydel1 Woronoff, individually and trading as Sydell Gowns, or under any other name or names and respondent' s representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce, or 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 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.

It is further order-d That respondent Sydell W oronoff, individually and trading as Sydell Gowns, or under any other name or names, and respondent's agents, representatives and employees directly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from removing, or causing or participating in the removal of, the stamp, tag, label or other identification required by the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 to be affixed to wool products subject to the provisions of such Act, prior to the time any such wool product is sold and delivcred to the ultimate consumer, without substituting therefor labels conforming to Section 4(a) (2) of said Act.

It is further ordered That respondent Sydell Woronoff, individually and trading as Sydell Gowns, or under any other name or names, and respondent's representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in con- 421 Dccision and Order nection 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, 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 Htextile fiber product" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding such textile fiber products by failing to affx a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification to each such textile fiber 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. It is further ordered That respondent Sydell Woronoff, individually and trading as Sydcll Gowns, or under any other name or names, and respondent' s representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device do forthwith cease and desist from removing or mutilating, or causing or participating" in the removal or mutilation of, the stamp, tag, label or other identification required by the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act to be affxed to any textile fiber product, after such textile fiber product has been shipped in commerce and prior to the time such textile fiber product is sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer, without substituting therefor labcls conforming to Section 4 of said Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and in the manner prescribed by Section 5 (b) of said Act.

indi- It is further- ordered That respondent Sydell Woronoff, vidually and trading as Sydel1 Gowns, or under any other name or names, and respondent's 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 sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or disin parttribution of any fur product which is made in whole or 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: A. Misbranding any fur product by:

Decision and Order 75 F.

1. Failng to af!x a label to such fur product showing in words and in 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 the term "natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on a label under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

3. Failing to set forth on a label the item number or mark assigned to such 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 in 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 Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

3. Failing to set forth on invoices the item numbers or marks assigned to such fur products. . It is further ordered That respondent Sydell W oI'onoff, individually and trading as Sydell Gowns, or under any other name or names, and respondent's representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from removing or causing or participating in the removal of, prior to the time any fur product subject to the provisions of the Fur Products Labeling Act is sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer, any label required by the said Act to be affxed to such fur products, without substituting therefor labels conforming to Section 1 of said Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and in the manner prescribed by Section 3(e) of said Act.

It is further ordered That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon him of this order, file with the Commission a report, in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he has complied with this order. v11IIIJ-uaU1L