Miss Darbs Coat Co., Inc

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

In toe Marrer or MISS DARBS COAT CO., INC., rrapine 4s BONNIE STYLES, ETC.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE WwooL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1683. Complaint, Feb. 10, 1970—Decision, Feb. 10, 1970 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturer of ladies’ coats to cease misbranding its wool products.

Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 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 Miss Darbs Coat Co., Inc., a corporation, trading as Bonnie Styles and Bonnie Petite and Aaron Levine, also known as Aaron Levin, 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 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 follows:

Paracrar 1. Respondent Miss Darbs Coat Co., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. Respondent Miss Darbs Coat Co., Inc., trades, among others, under the names of Bonnie Styles and Bonnie Petite with its office and principal place of business located at 147 West 25th Street, New York, New York. Respondent Aaron Levine, also known as Aaron Levin is an officer 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 the corporate respondent.

Complaint V7 ET.C.

Respondents are engaged in the manufacturing of ladies’ coats. 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 “commerce” is defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, wool products as “wool product” is defined therein.

Par. 3. Certain of said wool products were misbranded by the respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4(a)(1) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and 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 ladies’ coats, stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified by respondents as “100% wool,” whereas in truth and in fact, said products contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than represented.

Par. 4. Certain of said wool products 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 ladies’ coats, with labels on or affixed thereto, which failed to disclose:

(1) The percentage of the total fiber weight of the said wool products, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5 percent of the 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 percent or more; and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers.

(2) The name or other identification issued and registered by the Commission of the manufacturer of the said wool products or of one or more persons subject to Section 3 of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1989 with respect to the said wool products. Par. 5. Certain of said wool products were misbranded in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 for the reason that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, in the following respect:

BONNIE STYLES, ETC. 99 7 Decision and Order 1. Required information as to fiber content was not set forth in such a manner as to separately show the fiber content of each section of wool products containing two or more sections, in violation of Rule 23(b) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. 2. The fiber content of (pile fabric) linings used in wool products, namely coats, was not set forth separately and distinctly as a part of the required information on the stamps, tags, labels or other marks of identification of such wool products in violation of Rule 24(a) (2) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

3. The fiber content of the interlinings contained in garments was not set forth separately and distinctly as a part of the required information on the stamps, tags, labels or other marks of identification of such garments, in violation of Rule 24(b) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

Par. 6. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth above, were, and are, in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 19839 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, and now constitute, unfair methods of competition and unfair end deceptive acts or practices, in commerce within the meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. DeEcIsIoN 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 ail 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 Order iT ETC.

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 § 2.84(b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent Miss Darbs Coat Co., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York with its office and principal place of business located at 147 West 25th Street, New York, New York. Respondent Aaron Levine, also known as Aaron Levin is an officer 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 Miss Darbs Coat Co., Inc., a corporation, trading as Bonnie Styles and Bonnie Petite or under any other name, and its officers, and Aaron Levine, also known as Aaron Levin, 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, into commerce, or the offering for sale, sale, transportation, distribution, delivery for shipment or shipment, in commerce, of wool products, as “commerce” and “wool product” are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1989, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding such products by: 1. Falsely and 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 affix 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.

3. Failing to set forth required information on labels attached to wool products consisting of two or more sections of different fiber content, in such a manner as to show the fiber content of