Carpets Unlimited, Etc

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

In tee Matrer or CHARLES L. CRANDALL porne sustness ss CARPETS UNLIMITED, ETC.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTI- FICATION ACTS Docket C-2002. Complaint, Aug. 5, 1971—Decision, Aug. 5, 1971 Consent order requiring a Dalton, Ga., individual engaged in wholesaling of carpet yarns and manufacturing textile fiber carpeting to cease misbranding his textile fiber products and failing to maintain proper 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 Charles L. Crandall, individually and doing business as Carpets Unlimited and Crandall Yarn Company, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has 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:

Paracrapy 1. Respondent Charles L. Crandall is an individual doing business as Carpets Unlimited and Crandall Yarn Company with his office and principal place of business located on Rural Route 1, Carbondale Road, Dalton, Georgia.

CARPETS UNLIMITED, ETC. 189 188 Complaint Respondent is engaged in the wholesaling of carpet yarns and in the manufacture of textile fiber products, namely carpeting. Par. 2. Respondent is now and for some time last past has been engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction, manufacture for introduction, sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the importation into the United States, of textile fiber products; and has 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 has 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. 38. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by respondent 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 _ asto the names and amounts of the constituent fibers contained therein. Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, was textile stock represented to be 100 percent Acrilan whereas in truth and in fact, such products contained substantially different amounts of fibers other than as represented. Pan. 4. Certain of said textile products were further misbranded by respondent 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, but not limited thereto, were carpets which failed to disclose the true percentage of fibers by weight in the pile.

Par. 5. Respondent has failed to maintain proper records showing the fiber content of the textile fiber products manufactured by them, in violation of Section 6 of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Rule 39 of the regulations promulgated thereunder. — Par. 6. The acts.and practices of respondent 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 and practices, in commerce, under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Decision and Order 7 E.T.C..

Decision AND Orprr The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation. of certain acts and practices of the respondent named in the caption hereof, and the respondent having been furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft of complaint which the Division of Textiles and Furs proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondent with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Textile Fiber Products. Identification Act; and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondent 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 respondent 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 respondent has. 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 Section 2.384(b) of its rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Charles L. Crandall is an individual doing business as Carpets Unlimited and Crandall Yarn Company with his office and principal place of business located on Rural Route 1, Carbondale Road, Dalton, Georgia.

Respondent is engaged in the wholesaling of carpet yarns and in the manufacture of textile fiber products, namely carpeting. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered, That respondent Charles L. Crandall, individually, and doing business as Carpets Unlimited and Crandall Yarn Company or under any other name or names, and respondent’s representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device in connection with the introduction, delivery for introduction, manu- ‘CARPETS’ UNLIMITED, ETC. = + 191 188-2 Decision. and Order facturing 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 as required by Section 4(a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

(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 the information ‘required to be disclosed by Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber - Products Identification Act.

8B. Failing to maintain. and preserve proper records showing the fiber content of the textile fiber products manufactured by said: respondent, as required by Section 6 of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Rule 39 of the Regulations promulgated thereunder.

It is further ordered, That respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon him of this order, file with the Commission a report, in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he has complied with this order.