Maylis Associates

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

IN THE MATTER OF MAYLIS ASSOCIATES, ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 1551. Complaint, July 1969-Decision, July 2, 1969 Consent order requiring a New York City clothing manufacturer to cease misbranding and falsely invoicing its wool products. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission 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 to believe that MayEs Associates, a partnership, and Solomon EEas, Morris Ellis, Sidney Landau and Milton Steiger, individually and as copartners trading as Maylis Associates, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under 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 foHows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent MayEs Associates is a partnership. The said partnership is organized, exists and does business in the Complaint 76 F.

State of New York with its office and principal place of business located at 450 Seventh Avenue, ).ew York, New York. Individual respondents Solomon Elias, Morris EIl;s, Sidney Landau and Milton Steiger arc copartners in said partnership. They formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of said partnership. Their offce and plincipal place of business is the same as that of the partnership.

PAR. 2. Respondents now and fo)' 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 Pmducts Labeling Act of 1939, wool products as "wool product" is defined therein.

PAR. 3. Certain of said wool products were misbranded by respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a) (1) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and thc 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 certain fabrics which were stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified by respondents as containing 80'/ Rep. Wool 8';; Nylon and 12/; Fur Fibers " whereas in truth and in fact said fabrics contained substantially different fibers and amounts of flbers than as represented.

PAR. 4. Certain of said wool pmducts were further 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, namely fabrics with labels on or affxed thereto, which failed to disclose the percentage of total fiber weight of said wool products, exclusive of ornamentation, not exceeding 5 pel' centum of said total fiber weight, of (1) wool, (2) reprocesser! 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 alj other fibers. PAJ\. G. Certain of said wool products were misbranded ;n violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 in that they were MAYLIS ASSOCIATES, ET AL.

Complaint not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: 1. Stamps, tags, labels and other marks of identification attached to certain wool products contained the name or designation of fibers not present in said product, in violation of Rule 8 (f) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. 2. Information required under Section 4 (a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was abbreviated on labels in violation of Rule 9 (a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. PAR. 6. The acts and practices of respondents as set forth above were, and are, in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and 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. 7. Respondents now and for some time last past have been engaged in the advertising, offering for sale, sale and distribution of products, namely fabrics, to their customers in commerce. The respondents maintain and at all times mentioned herein have maintained a substantial course of trade in said products in commerce as (lcommerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 8. Respondents in the course and conduct of their business as aforesaid, have made statements on their invoices and shipping memoranda to their customers misrepresenting the character and amount of the constituent fibers present in such products. Among such misrepresentations, but not limited thereto, were statements representing certain fabrics to be "80 % Rep. Wool 8% Nylon, and 12'i Fur Fibers " whereas in truth and in fact the said products contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than were represented. PAR. 9. The acts and practices of respondents as set out in Paragraph Eight have had and now have the tendency and capacity to mislead and deceive purchasers of said products as to the true content thereof.

PAR. 10. The acts and practices as set out in Paragraph Eight were and are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and constituted, and now constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices, in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Decision and Order 76 F.

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 Commission 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 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 Maylis Associates is a partnership which is organized, exists and does business in the State of ew York and its offce and principal place of business is located at 450 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York.

Respondents Solomon Elias, Morris Ells, Sidney Landau and Milton Steiger are copartners of said partnership and their address is 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 Maylis Associates, a partnership, and Solomon Elias, Morris Ellis, Sidney Landau and Milon Steiger, individually and as copartners doing business as Maylis MAYLIS ASSOCIATES, ET AL.

Decision and Order Associates or under any other name, 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 the offering for sale, sale transportation, distribution, delivery for shipment or shipment in commerce, of ,vool products, as "commerce" and IIwool product" are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding such products by: 1. Falsely 01' 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 01' place on each such product a stamp, tag, label 01' 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. Setting forth as a part of the listing 01' marking of required fiber content on the stamp, tag, label 01' other mark of identification affxed to a wool product words which constitute, directly or indirectly, the generic name of a fiber not present in the product.

4. Setting forth words and terms in required information under Section 4 (a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form on labels affxed to wool products. It is further' ordered That respondents Maylis Associates, a partnership, and Solomon Elias, Morris Ellis, Sidney Landau and Milton Steiger, individually and as copartners doing business as Maylis Associates or under any other name, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the advertising, offering for sale, sale OJ' distribution of fabrics 01' other products in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from misrepresenting the character or amount of the constituent fibers contained in such products on invoices or shipping memoranda applicable thereto or in any other manner.

It is flu/her ol'dernl, 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 76 F.