S. Scheinfeld & Sons, Incorporated

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

IN THE MATTER OF SCHEINFELD & SON, INCORPORATED, ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE ,'EDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION AND WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-2731. Complaint, Sept. 1975-Decision, Sept. , 1975 Consent order requiring a South Kearny, N.J., wholesale dealer in wool blend and textile fabrics, among other things to cease falsely and deceptively labeling wool and textie products; and to notify those that purchased subject products that they were mislabeled. Further, respondents are required to discontinue substituting their labels for those on textile fabrics they purchase for resale unless they comply with provisions of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

Appearances For the Commission: James Manos.

For the respondents: Pro se.

COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the 700 FEDJ.RAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint 86 F.

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 S. Scheinfeld and Son, Incorporated, a corporation and Joseph Scheinfeld 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 the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and it now appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereto would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent S. Scheinfeld and Son, Incorporated is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its principal office and place of business located at Jacobus Ave., Tompkins Terminal Bldg. #10, South Kearny, N.J.

Respondent Joseph Scheinfeld is an officer of said corporation. He formulates, directs and controls the acts and practices of the corporate respondent, including those hereinafter set forth. His business address is the same as that of the corporate respondent. Respondents are engaged in the business of purchasing fabrics from various sources and sellng such fabrics in the various States. PAR. 2. Respondents are now and for some time last past have been engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction, sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, 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 either in their original shipment in commerce, textile fiber products, state or contained in other textile fiber products, as the terms commerce " and Htextile 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 Textie 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 the constituent fibers contained therein. Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited which contain thereto, were textie fiber products, namely fabrics, substantially different types of fihers than those represented. 699 Complaint PAR. 4. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled, or herwise 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 textile fiber products, namely fabrics, with labels which failed to disclose;

1. The true generic names of the fibers present therein. 2. The true percentages of the fibers present by weight. PAR. 5. Respondents, in violation of Section 5(a) of the Textile 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 affixed 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. 6. Respondents, in substituting a stamp, tag, label, or other identification pursuant to Section 5(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, have not kept such records as would show the information set forth on the stamp, tag, label, or other identification that was removed, and the name or names of the person or persons from whom such textile fiber products were purchased in violation of Section 6(b) of said Act.

PAR. 7. The acts and practices of 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 under the unfair and deceptive acts and practices, in commerce, Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 8. Respondents, now and for some time last past, have introduced into commerce, sold, transported, distributed, delivered for " is shipment, shipped, and offered for sale, in commerce, as "commerce defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, wool products as wool product" is defined therein.

PAR. 9. 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. Deeision and Order 86 F.T. Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto, were wool fabrics stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified by H whereas in truth and in fact, said productsrespondents as "100% wool contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fiber than represented.

PAR. 10. Certain of said products were 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 prescribed by the rules and regulations promulgated under said Act. Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto, were wool products with labels affixed thereto which failed to disclose the percentage of the total fiber weight of said wool products, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding five 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. PAR. 11. 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 rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted and now constitute, unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices, in commerce, within the 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 New York Regional Office 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, 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 settement 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 rules; and The Commission having thereafter considered the matter and having determined that it had reason to believe that the respondents have S. SCHE!NFELD & SON, INC., E'I AI,. 7(); 699 Decision and Order 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 fCf a period of sixty (60) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in Section 2.:i4(b) of it 111e8, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the fcllowing- jurisdictional finding and enters the following order:

1. Respondent S. Scheinfeld and SO'll, Incorporated is a corporation organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Jersey with its principal place of business located at Jacobus Ave., Tompkins Terminal Bldg. #10, South Keamy, I'LJ. Respondent Joseph Scheinfeld is an officer of said corpm'ation. He formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices nd policies of said corporation and his address is the same as that of said corporation. 2- The F ede:tal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in t.he public interest.

ORDER It is ordered That respondents S. Stheinfeld and Son, Incorporatt, a corporation, its successors and assigns, and its officers, and Joseph Scheinfeld, individually and as an officer of said corporation and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division or other device, in connection with the 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, tri:nsportatlon or em sing to be transported, after shipment in commerce, of any i,textile fiberproduct) whether in its original State or contained in other textile fiber1' products, as the terms "commerce" and "textile fiber product" an: defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, do forths\7ith cease and desist from:

A. Misbranding textile fiber products b 1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, invoicin advertising or otherwise identifying such products as tc: the !'ame mamount of the 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 J.nd conspicuous Decision and Order 86 F.

manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. B. Removing or mutilating, 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 affixed 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 the Act.

C. Failing to maintain and preserve, as required by Section 6(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, such records of the fiber content of textile fiber products as wil show the information set forth on the stamps, tags, labels or other identification removed by respondents, together with the name or names of the person or persons from whom such textile fiber products were received, when substituting stamps, tags, labels or other identification pursuant to Section 5(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. It is further ordered That respondents S. Scheinfeld and Son Incorporated, a corporation, its successors and assigns, and its officers and Joseph Scheinfeld, individually and as an offcer of said corporation and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division, 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 commerce" and "wool product" are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, 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 constituent fibers contained therein.

2. Failng to securely affx to, or place on, each such product a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification showing in a clear and conspicuo11S manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(a)(2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939. It is further ordered That respondents notify by delivery of a copy of this order by registered mail, each of their customers that purchased the textile and wool products which gave rise to this complaint of the fact that such products were misbranded.

It is further ordered That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions. 705 Complaint It is further ordered That respondents notify the Commission at least thirty (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 individual respondent named herein promptly notify the Commission of the discontinuance of his present business or employment. Such notice shall include respondent's current business address and a statement as to the nature of the business or employment in which he is engaged as well as a description of his duties and responsibilities.

It is further ordered That respondents shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file wjth the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist contained herein.