DNB, Inc

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

IN THE MATTER OF DNB, INC. , TRADING AS WOMEN' S HABERDASHERS, ET AL. CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-161.9. Complaint, Nov. 1.969-Decision, Nov. 1969 Consent order requiring anew Yark City manufacturer of ladies' custommade and ready-to-wear garments to cease misbranding its wool and textile fiber products and failing to maintain required records on its textile fiber products.

COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 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 DKB , Inc., a corporation, trading as Woms Haberdashers, and Beth Lee Liss, individually and as an officer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents Complaint 76 F.

have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regnlations promulgated under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and 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 DNB , Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. The respondent corporation trades as Women s Haberdashers and its offce and principal place of business is located at 554 Madison A venue, New York, New York.

Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of ladies ' custom-made and ready-to-wear garments, both wool and textile. Beth Lee Liss is an offcer of said corporation. He formulates directs and controls the policies, acts and practices of the corporate respondent including those hereinafter referred to. His address is the same as that of the corporate respondent. PAR. 2. 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 I(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 respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged labeled, or other- ,vise 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 with labels on or affxed thereto, which failed to disclose the percentage of the total fiber weight of the said wool products, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding five per centum of said total fiber weight, of (1) wool; (2) reprocessed wool; (3) reused wool; (1) each fiber other than wool, when said percentage by weight of such fiber was five per centum or more; and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers. PAR. 4. 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 WOMEN S HABERDASHERS, ET AL. 579 577 Complaint promulgated thereunder, in that samples, swatches or specimens of wool products subject to the aforesaid Act, which were used to promote or effect sales of such wool products, were not labeled to show their respective fiber content and other information required by 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 Rnles and Regulations. PAR. 5. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth above were, and are, in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rnles and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, and no\v constitute, unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, within the intent an,l meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 6. Respondents are now and for some time last past have been engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction, manufacture for introdnction, 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 r dentification Act.

PAR. 7. 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.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products, hut not limited thereto, were textile garments without labels or 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. 8. Respondents have failed to maintain proper records Complaint 76 F.

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. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded in violation of the Textie Fiber Products Identification Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promnlgated thereunder, in that samples, swatches or specimens of textile fiber products subject to the aforesaid Acts 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 1(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.

The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondents as set forth in Paragraphs Seven, Eight and Nine 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 and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce, within the intent and meaning of 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 Textile 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, the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Textile Fiber Products Identiication Act; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of aU the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settement purposes only and does not constitute and admission by respondents that the law has been WOMEN S HABERDASHERS, ET AL. 581 577 Decision and Order 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. DNB , Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the State of New York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 554 Madison Avenue, New York, New York.

Respondent Beth Lee Liss is an offcer of said corporation. He formulates, directs and controls the policies, acts and practices 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 this proceeding and of the respondents and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered That respondents DNB, Inc., a corporation, trading as Women s Haberdashers, or under any other name or names, and its offcers, and Beth Lee Liss, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, 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 wool products, as Hcommerce" and "wool product" are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding wool products by: 1. 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.

582 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION lJECISIONS Deeision and Order 76 F.

2. Failing to affx labels to samples, swatches or specimens of wool products used to promote or effect the sale of such wool products showing in words and figures plainly legible al1 the information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939. It is fU1'thel' ordel'ed That respondents DNB , Inc. , a corporation, trading as \Vornen s Haberdashers, or under any other name 01' names, and its offcers, and Beth Lee Liss, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, 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 textile fiber product which has been advertised or offered for sale in comnlerce; 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 fi.ber products, as the terms "commerce" and "textile fiber products" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, do forthwith cease and desist from; A. Misbranding such textile fiber products by: 1. Failing to affx a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification to each such textile fiber product showing in a clear, legible and conspicuons manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. 2. Failing to affx labels to samples, swatches or specimens of textile tiber prod nets used to promote or effect the sale of such textile fiber products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

B. Failing to maintain proper records of fiber content of textile fiber products manufactured by respondents, as required by Section 6 (a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Rule 39 of the Regulations promulgated thereunder.

WOMEN S HABERDASHERS, ET AL. 583 577 Decision and Order It is furthe1' ordel' That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribnte a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions.

It is fU1'ther ordered That 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.