The Miami Rug Company

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

IN THE :VIATTER OF THE MIA:Vll mJC COMPANY ET AL. CONSE)lT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL 'rhode COMMISSIO)I AND 'I'HE TEXTILE FIBER PRODVCTS IDEj\' TIFICATION ACTS Docket C-1CJ7. Complaint, Nov. 96D- Deci.sion, Nov. , 196.9 Consent order requiring four Miami, Fla. , sellers and installers of carpeting and floor covering material to cease misbranding, falsely advertising, and riCrnoving law required identification from its textile fiber products. COMPLAI)lT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission , THE MIAMI RUG CO. , ET AL. 563 562 Complaint 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 The Miami Rug Company, Wilans, Inc., Carpet Fashions, Inc., Bartex Corporation and Carpet Remnant King, Inc. , corporations, and James W. Baros and Evans E. Baros, individually and as offcers of said corporations, 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. Respondents The Miami Rug Company, Wilans, Inc. , Carpet Fashions, Inc., Bartex Corporation and Carpet Remnant King, Inc. , are corporations organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida. Individual respondents James Vi. Baros and Evans E. Baros are offcers of said corporations. They formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of said corporations. Respondents are engaged in the sale and installation of carpeting and floor coverings, and their address and principal place of business is 6955 NW. 36th Avenue Miami, Florida. PAR. 2. Respondents are now and for some time last past have , salebeen engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction , and in the trans-advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce portation or causing to be transported in commerce, and in the importation into the United States, of textie 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 textie 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 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 constituent fibers contained therein.

Complaint 76 F.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were floor coverings which were falsely and deceptively labeled as containing "Acrilan" whereas, in truth and in fact said floor coverings contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than represented.

Also among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were floor coverings which were falsely and deceptively advertised in, among others, the Fort Lauderdale News and Sun-Sentinel, and the Palm Beach Times, newspapers published in the State of Florida, and having a wide circulation in said State and various other States of the United States, in that the respondents in disclosing the fiber content information as to floor coverings containing exempted backings, fillings, or paddings failed to set forth such fiber content information in such a manner as to indicate that it applied only to the face, p11e, or outer surface of the floor coverings and not to the exempted backings lil1ings, or paddings.

PAR. 1. Certain of said textile fiber products were further misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tag-ged 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.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were floor coverings on display in the respondents' showroom with labels which failed:

(a) To disclose the generic names of al1 fibers present; (b) To disclose the true percentage of the fibers present by weight; and (c) To disclose the name, or other identification issued and registered by the Commission, of the manufacturer of the said carpeting or one or more persons subject to Section 3 of the said Act with respect to such carpeting-.

PAR. 5. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulg-ated thereunder in that in disclosing the required fiber content information as to floor coverings containing exempted backings, fillings, or pad dings, such disclosure was not made in such a manner as to indicate that such re- THE MIAMI RUG CO. , ET AL. 565 562 ComtJlaint qui red fiber content information related only to the face, pile, or outer surface of the floor covering and not to the backing, fillng, or padding, in violation of Rule 11 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 or implications 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 specified by Section 4 (c) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. Among such textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were floor coverings which were falsely and deceptively advertised in, among others, the Fort Lauderdale News and Sun-Sentinel and the Palm Beach Times, newspapers published in the State of Florida, 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 fiber implying terms such as "Acrilans" without the aforesaid required information being set forth.

PAR. 7. 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 Textie Fiber Products Identification Act in that said textile fiber products were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated therennder in the following respects:

A. 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.

B. A fiber trademark was used in advertising textile fiber products without a full disclosure of the fiber content information required, in the said advertisement, in violation of Rule 41 (a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

Complaint 76 F.

C. A fiber trademark was used in advertising textile fiber products containing more than 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 (b) of the aforesaid Rules and Regnlations.

D. A fiber trademark was used in advertising textie 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. 8. Respondents, in violation of Section 5(a) of the Textie Fiber Products Identification Act have caused and participated in the removal of, prior to the time textile fiber products subject to the provisions of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act were sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer, labels required by the Textile Fiber Products Identification 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 5 (b) of said Act.

PAR. 9. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth above were, and are, in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promnlgated 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. 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 Textile Fiber Prod nets 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 THE MIAMI RUG CO. , ET . AL. 567 562 Decision and Order 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 S 2.34 (b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Proposed respondents The Miami Rug Company, Wilans Inc., Carpet Fashions, Inc., Bartex Corporation and Carpet Remnant King, Inc. , are corporations organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida with their offce and principal place of business located at 6955 NW. 36th Avenue, Miami, Florida.

Proposed respondents James W. Baros and Evans E. Baros are offcers of proposed corporate respondents. They formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of said corporations. Their address is the same as that of said corporations. 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 The JViami Rug Company, Wilans, Inc., Carpet Fashions, Inc., Bartex Corporation and Carpet Remnant King, Inc., corporations, and their offcers, and James W. Baros and Evans E. Baros, individually and as offcers of said corporations, and respondents ' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection 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, trans- Decision and Order 76 F.

portation, 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 textie fiber product, whether in its original state or contained in other textie fiber products, as the terms "commerce" and "textile fiber product" are defined in the Textie Fiber Products Identification Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. Misbranding textie fiber products by: 1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, invoicing, advertising or otherwise identifying any textile fiber. product as to the name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein.

2. Failing to affx labels 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 set forth in disclosing the required fiber content information as to floor coverings containing exempted backings, fillngs, or pad dings, that such disclosure relates only to the face, pile or outer surface of such textile fiber products and not to the exempted backings, fillngs, or paddings.

B. Falsely and deceptively advertising textile fiber products by:

1. Making any representations by disclosure 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 product, 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 except that the percentages of the fibers present in the textile fiber product need not be stated. 2. Failing to set forth in disclosing the required fiber content information as to floor coverings containing exempted backings, fillngs, or pad dings, that such disclosure relates only to the face, pile or outer surface of THE MIAMI RUG CO. , ET AL. 569 562 Decision and Order such textile fiber products 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 more than one fiber without such fiber trademark appearing in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fiber in plainly legible type or lettering of equal size and conspicuousness.

5. 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 respondents The Miami Rug Company, Wilans, Inc., Carpet Fashions, Inc., Bartex Corporation and Carpet Remnant King. Inc. , corporations, and their offcers. and James W. Baros and Evans E. Baros, individually and as offcers of said corporations, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from removing or mntilating 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 labels 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.

It is further ordered That respondents notify the Commission at least 30 days prior to any proposed change in the corporate respondent such as dissolution, assignment or sale resulting in the emergence of a successor corporation, the creation or dissolution of subsidiaries or any other change in the corporation which may affect compliance obligations arising out of the order. It is further ordered That the respondent corporations shah Dccision and Order 76 F.

forthwith distribnte a copy of this order to each of their operating divisions.

It is further ordered That the respondents herein shah, 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.