Brand & Puritz

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

IN THE MATTER OF BRAND & PURITZ, ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFI- CATION, THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1 528. Complaint, May 5, 1969—Decision, May 5, 1969 Consent order requiring a Kansas City, Mo., manufacturer of women’s, misses’ and children’s apparel to cease misbranding its fur, wool and textile fiber products, falsely advertising its textile fiber products, and failing to keep required records.

BRAND & PURITZ, ET AL. 773 172 Complaint COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 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 Brand & Puritz, a partnership, and Hyman Brand, David Levitch, Frances B. Levitch, Arthur A. Brand and Carl Puritz, individually and as C¢opartners of said partnership, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and the Fur Products Labeling 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 Brand & Puritz is a partnership organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue -of the laws of the State of Missouri. Its office and principal place of business is located at 318 West Eighth Street, Kansas City, Missouri. 7 Individual respondents Hyman Brand, David Levitch, Frances B. Levitch, Arthur A. Brand and Carl Puritz are copartners who formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of said partnership. Their addresses are the same as that of said partnership.

The respondents are manufacturers of several lines of women’s and misses’ apparel as well as children’s apparel. Par. 2. The respondents are 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.

Complaint 75 F.T.C, Par. 8. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4(a) of 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 fibers contained therein.

Among such textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were women’s and misses’ coats which were described in their brochure as “silkana” thus implying that such coats were composed entirely of silk fibers when in truth and in fact the coats contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than as represented.

Par. 4. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified as required under the provisions of Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. * Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were women’s and misses’ coats with labels which failed: (1) To disclose the true percentage of the fibers present by weight; and (2) To disclose the true generic names of the fibers present. Par. 5. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that samples, swatches and specimens of textile fiber products subject to the aforesaid Act, which were used to promote or effect sales of such textile fiber products, were not labeled to show their respective fiber content and other information required by Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in violation of Rule 21(a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

Par. 6. Certain of said textile fiber products were falsely and deceptively advertised in that respondents in making disclosures of implication as to the fiber content of such textile fiber products, in written advertisements used to aid, promote, and assist, directly, or indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale, of said products, failed to set forth the required information as to fiber content as set out by Section 4(c) of the Textile Fiber Products BRAND & PURITZ, ET AL. 775 172 Complaint Identification Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. Among and included in the aforesaid advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements. of respondents which. appeared in buyers guides and catalogues sent to customers in various States of the United States.

Among such falsely and deceptively advertised textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were articles of wearing apparel which were advertised by means of fiber implying terms such as “corduroy,” and “silkana,” among others but not limited thereto, without setting forth the true generic names of the fibers present in the said textile fiber products. Par. 7. By means of the aforesaid advertisements respondents have falsely. and deceptively advertised textile fiber products in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act in that said textile fiber products were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following tespects:

(a) A fiber trademark was used in advertising textile fiber products, without a full disclosure of the fiber content information required by the said Act and the Rules and Regulations thereunder in at least one instance in said advertisements, in violation of Rule 41(a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. (b) Fiber trademarks were used in advertising textile fiber products, namely ladies’ and misses’ wearing apparel containing more than one fiber, and such fiber trademarks did not appear in the required fiber content information in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic names of the fibers to which they related in plainly legible type or lettering of equal size and conspicuousness, in violation of Rule 41(b) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

Par. 8. Respondents have failed to maintain and preserve 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. 9. 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, under the Federal Trade Commission Act. Complaint 75 ET.C.

Par. 10. 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. 11. Certain of said wool products were misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified as required under the provision of Section 4(a)(2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the said Acts.

Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto were women’s and misses’ coats 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 said 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 was 5 per centum. or more; and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers. Par. 12. Certain of said wool products were misbranded 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 respect: (a) The generic names of manufactured fibers established in Rule 7 of the Regulations promulgated under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act were not used in naming such fibers in required information, in violation of Rule 8(b) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

(b) Samples, swatches or specimens of wool products used to promote or effect sales of such wool products in commerce, were not labeled or marked to show the information required under Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in violation of Rule 22 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. PAR. 13. The acts and practices as set forth above in Paragraphs Eleven and Twelve 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 or deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

BRAND & PURITZ, ET AL. 777 172 Complaint Par. 14. 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 have manufactured for sale, sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported, and distributed fur products which. have been made in whole or in part of furs which had been.shipped and received in commerce as the terms “commerce,” “fur” and “fur products” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 15. Certain of the 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: with labels which failed to show the true | animal name of the fur used in the fur products. Par. 16. Certain of fur products were misbranded in that labels attached thereto, set forth the name or names of an animal or animals other than the name of the animal that produced the fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 4(3) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. _ Par. 17. The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondents, as herein alleged in Paragraphs Fifteen and Sixteen are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition 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 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 Commis- . sion Act, the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Fur Products Labeling Act; and Decision and Order 75 F.T.C.

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 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 § 2.34(b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Brand & Puritz, is a partnership organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Missouri with its office and principal place of business located at 318 West Eighth Street, Kansas City, Missouri. Respondents Hyman Brand, David Levitch, Frances B. Levitch, Arthur A. Brand, and Carl Puritz are copartners and their addresses are the same as that of said partnership. 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 Brand & Puritz, a partnership, and Hyman Brand, David Levitch, Frances B. Levitch, Arthur A. Brand, and Carl Puritz, individually and as copartners trading as Brand & Puritz, or under any other name or names, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, delivery 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 United States of any textile fiber product; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation or causing to be transported of any BRAND & PURITZ, ET AL. 779 112 Decision and Order 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 commerce, 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. Misbranding textile fiber products by: 1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, invoicing, advertising or otherwise identifying any textile fiber products as to the name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein.

2. Failing to affix a stamp, tag, label or other means of 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. 3. Failing to label samples, swatches, or specimens of textile fiber products subject to the Act, which are used to promote or effect sales of such textile fiber products, in such a manner as to show their respective fiber contents and other required information. — B. Falsely and deceptively advertising textile fiber products by:

1. Making any representations, directly or by implication, as to the fiber content of any textile fiber product in any written advertisement which is used to aid, promote, or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale of such textile fiber products, unless the same information required to be shown on the stamp, tag, label or other means of identification under Section 4(b)(1) and (2) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act is contained in the said advertisement, in the manner and form required, except that the percentages of the fibers present in the textile fiber product need not be stated.

2. Using a fiber trademark in advertisements without a full disclosure of the required content information in at least one instance in the said advertisement. 3. Using a fiber trademark in advertising textile fiber products containing more than one fiber without such Decision and Order 15 F.T.C.

fiber trademark appearing in the required fiber content information in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fiber in plainly legible type or lettering of equal size and conspicuousness. C. 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 Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

It is further ordered, That respondents Brand &. Puritz, a partnership, and Hyman Brand, David Levitch, Frances B. Levitch, Arthur A. Brand and Carl Puritz, individually and as copartners trading as Brand & Puritz, or under any other name or names, 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 in connection with the sale, transportation, distribution, delivery for shipment, shipment or offering for sale 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 such products by: A. Failing to securely affix to or place on each such product a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification correctly 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. B. Failing to set forth the generic names of manufactured fibers established in Rule 7 of the Regulations promulgated under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, in naming such fibers in required information on stamps, tags, labels or other means of identification attached to wool products.

C. Failing to affix labels to samples, swatches, or specimens of wool products used to promote or effect the sale of wool products, showing in words and figures plainly legible all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4(a)(2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

It is further ordered, That respondents Brand & Puritz, a partnership, and Hyman Brand, David Levitch, Frances B. Levitch, Arthur A. Brand and Carl Puritz, individually and as co- GOLDLINE FASHIONS, INC., ET AL. 781 T12 Complaint partners trading as Brand & Puritz, or under any other name or names, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device in connection with the introduction, manufacture for 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 in 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 misbranding fur products by:

1. Failing to-affix labels to fur products showing in words and in figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. , 2. Setting forth on the label attached to any such fur product the name or names of any animal or animals other than the name of the animal producing the fur contained in such fur product as specified in the Fur Products Name Guide and as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations. 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.