J. C. Best, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF J. C. BEST, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket C-1535. Complaint, May 22, 1969—-Decision, May 22, 1969 Consent order requiring a Braintree, Mass., retailer of rugs and carpeting to cease misbranding and falsely advertising its textile fiber products. J. C. BEST, INC., ET AL. 923 922 Complaint COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act 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 J. C. Best, Inc., a corporation, and David S. Levine, individually and as an officer 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 J. C. Best, Inc., is a corporation orga- _ nized, existing and doing business‘ under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. - Respondent David S. Levine is an officer of said corporate respondent. He formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies‘ of said corporate respondent, ‘including the acts, practices and policies hereinafter set forth. ° ~ Respondents are engaged in the retail sale of rugs and carpeting, with their office and principal place of business located at 845 Granite Street, Braintree, Massachusetts. Par. 2. 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.

Par. 3. 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 in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

Complaint 15 F.T.C.

Among such misbranded textile.fiber products, but not limited thereto, were numerous rolls of carpeting which contained no labels.

Par. 4. 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 in disclosing the required fiber content information as to floor coverings containing exempted backings, fillings, or ‘paddings, such disclosure’ was not made in such. a manner as to indicate that such required fiber content information related only to the face, pile or outer surface of the floor covering and not to the backing, filling or padding, in violation. of Rule 11 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. Par. 5. Certain of. said textile fiber products were falsely and deceptively advertised in that respondents in making disclosures or implications as to the fiber content of such textile fiber products. in written advertisements used . to aid, promote and to. 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 specified by. Section 4(c) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification. Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations under said Act.

Among such falsely and deceptively advertised textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were carpets which were falsely and deceptively advertised in “The Boston Globe,” “The Record American” and “The Boston Advertiser,” newspapers published in the city of Boston, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and having a wide circulation in said State and various other States of the United States, in that the said textile fiber products were advertised by means of the fiber trademark “Herculon” without the aforesaid required information being set forth. Par. 6. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondents 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 thereunder in the following respect:

1. In disclosing the required fiber content information as to floor coverings containing exempted backings, fillings, or paddings, such disclosure was not made in such a manner as to indicate that such required fiber content information related only to J. C. BEST, INC., ET AL. 925 922 Decision and Order the face, pile, or outer. surface ofthe floor covering and not to the backing, filling, or padding, in violation of Rule 11 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

2. 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 the said advertisement, in violation of Rule 41(a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. - 8.-A fiber trademark was used in advertising textile fiber products: containing only one fiber and:such fiber trademark did not appear at least once in the said advertisement, in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of ‘the fiber in plainly legible and. conspicuous type, in violation of Rule: 41(c) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. Par. 7. 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 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 the 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 Commission Act 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 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 Decision and Order 75 F.T.C.

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 J. C. Best, Inc., is. a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with its office and. principal place. of business located at 845. Granite Street, Braintree, Massachusetts.

_ Respondent David S. Levine 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 of the proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is is in the public interest. . ORDER It is ordered, That respondents J. C. Best, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and David S.. Levine, individually and as.an officer of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the 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 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. 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. 2. Failing to disclose on labels the required fiber J. C. BEST, INC., ET AL. .- 927 922 Decision and Order content information as to floor coverings, containing exempted backings, fillings, or paddings, in such manner as to indicate that it relates only to the face, pile, or outer surface of the floor covering and not to the exempted backing, filling or padding.

B. Falsely and deceptively advertising textile fiber products by:

1. Making any representations, by disclosure or by implication, as to 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 product unless the same information required to be shown on the stamp, tag, label, or other méans of identification under Sections 4(b)(1) and (2) of the Textile ‘Fiber Products Identifieation Act is contained ‘in the said advertisement, except that the percentages of the fibers present in the textile fiber product need not be stated.

2.. Failing. to set forth in: disclosing fiber content information as to floor coverings containing exempted backings, fillings. or paddings,. that such disclosure relates only to the face, pile or outer surface of such textile fiber product and not to the exempted backings, fillings, or paddings.

3. Using a fiber trademark in advertising textile fiber products without a full disclosure of the required fiber content information in at least one instance in said advertisement.

4. Using a fiber trademark in advertising textile fiber products containing only one fiber without such fiber trademark appearing at least once in the advertisement in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fiber, in plainly legible and conspicuous type.

It is further ordered, That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this 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.

.. Complaint. 75 F.T.C.