Tippy Togs of Miami, Inc

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

In rue Marrer or TIPPY TOGS OF MIAMI, IN C., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO TITE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF TILE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket C-1696. Complaint, Feb. 24, 1970—Decision, Feb. 24, 1970 Consent order requiring a Miami, Fla., manufacturer of children’s clothing to cease misbranding its textile fiber products and failing to maintain required records.

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 Tippy Togs of Miami, Inc., a corporation, and Norman Reinhard, 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: Paracrari 1. Respondent Tippy Togs of Miami, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the State of Florida.

Respondent Norman Reinhard is the principal officer of said corporation. He formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies of said corporate respondent.

Respondents are engaged in the manufacture and sale of children’s apparel. The office and principal place of business is located at 2400 NW. Fifth Avenue, Miami, Florida. The address of the individual respondent is the same as that of the corporate respondent. 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 174 FEDERAL. TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint V7 E.T.C.

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 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 amounts of the constituent fibers contained therein.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were garments with dual labels showing conflicting amounts of constituent fibers therein.

Par. 4. Certain of the textile fiber products were misbranded by the respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified to show each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(b) 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 misbranded textile products were garments with labels which failed:

1. To disclose the true generic names of the fibers present; and - 2. To disclose the true percentages of such fibers. Par. 5. 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 the following respects: 1. Non-required information was set forth on labels in such a manner as to interfere with, minimize, detract from and conflict with the required information and in such a way as to be false and deceptive as to the fiber content in violation of Rule 16(c) of the aforementioned Rules and Regulations.

2. The 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 textile fiber products containing two or more sections, in violation of Rule 25(b) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. Par. 6. Respondents have failed to maintain and preserve proper records showing the fiber content of the textile fiber products manufactured by them, in violation of Section 6(a) of the Textile Fiber IPP “LUUD UP seam, atvery ae --—- le 173 Decision and Order Products Identification Act and Rule 39 of the Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Par. 7. 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 promulgated 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 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 ]aw 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 (80) 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 Tippy Togs of Miami, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws. of the State of Florida.

Respondent Norman Reinhard is the principal officer of said corporation. He formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies of said corporate respondent.

Order (7 I.T.C.

Respondents are engaged in the manufacture and sale of children’s apparel.

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 ts ordered, That respondents Tippy Togs of Miami, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Norman Reinhard, 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, 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 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. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, invoicing, advertising, or otherwise identifying such products as to the name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein.

2. 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.

3. Setting forth on the label or elsewhere on the product non-required information so as to interfere with, minimize, detract from, or conflict with the required information or to be false or deceptive as to fiber content. 4, Failing to make a disclosure on the required Jabel on or affixed to textile fiber products composed of two or more sections of different fiber composition, in such a manner as BELK-HUDSON CO., INC., ET AL. 177 173 : Complaint to show the fiber composition of each section in all instances where such disclosure is necessary to avoid deception. B. Failing to maintain and preserve for at least three years proper records showing the fiber content of textile fiber products manufactured by them, as required by Section 6(a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Rule 39 of the Regulations promulgated thereunder.

It is further ordered, That respondents notify the Commission at least thirty (80) days prior thereto of 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 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.