Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

determined that it had reason to believe that the respondent has violated the said Act, 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 sixty days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in Section 2.34(b) of its rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Proposed respondent Petrolane, Inc. is a California corporation with its office located at P.O. Drawer 1410, 1600 E. Hill St., Long Beach, Calif.

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, its successors and assigns, its officers, agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from delivering LP gas to any customer at a price higher than that charged by respondent to the customer for the immediately preceding delivery (or higher than the price to similar customers prior to the price increase, if there have been no prior deliveries to that customer) (hereinafter referred to as "increased price gas") unless:

1. Respondent has notified the customer prior to delivery of "increased price gas” that its price of LP gas has increased, has provided the customer with the applicable price schedule, and has disclosed that related information may be obtained by calling respondent's district office; or

2. (a) The bill left at the customer's premises by the deliveryman for "increased price gas" discloses on the front the number of gallons delivered, the price per gallon and the total price of the delivery; clearly and conspicuously states on the front: “Reflects price increase”; and contains a statement that the amount of the increase and related information may be obtained by calling respondent's district office; and

(b) All bills sent to customers, subsequent to the bill left by the deliveryman, clearly and conspicuously state: “The charges on this statement may include the effects of a price increase or decrease. For further information please refer to your field delivery invoice or call our district office.”

It is further ordered, That respondent shall forthwith deliver a copy of this order to each of its employees and agents engaged directly or indirectly in the retail distribution of LP gas, and to each employee who

[blocks in formation]

becomes so engaged during a period of two years from the date this order becomes effective.

It is further ordered, That respondent shall maintain such records as will fully disclose the manner and form of its compliance with this order.

It is further ordered, That respondent notify the Commission at least thirty days prior to any proposed change in the 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 this order.

It is further ordered, That respondent shall, within sixty days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a written report setting forth in detail the manner and form of its compliance with this order.

a

IN THE MATTER OF

REGAL APPAREL LTD.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS

IDENTIFICATION ACTS

Docket C-2621. Complaint, Jan. 2, 1975 - Decision, Jan. 2, 1975

[ocr errors]

Consent order requiring a Los Angeles, Calif., manufacturer and importer of men's

and boys' apparel, among other things to cease misbranding its textile fiber products.

Appearances

For the Commission: Gerald E. Wright and Kerper G. Propert.
For the respondent: Pro se.

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 such Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Regal Apparel Ltd., a corporation, 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 now appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the

[blocks in formation]

public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Regal Apparel Ltd., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. Their office and principal place of business is located at 124 E. Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, Calif.

Respondent is engaged in the manufacturing, importation and sale of mens and boys wearing apparel, including, but not limited to tennis jackets.

PAR. 2. Respondent is now and for some time last past has been engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction, manufacture for introduction, sale, 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 has sold, offered for sale, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, textile fiber products, which have been offered for sale in commerce; and has sold, offered for sale, 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 products” are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

Par. 3. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by the 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, or otherwise identified as to the name or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were textile fiber products (tennis jackets) with labels which set forth the fiber content as "65% Cotton, 35% Polyester," whereas, in truth and in fact, the said textile fiber products contained substantially different amounts of fibers than represented.

PAR. 4. 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

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

[blocks in formation]

a

copy of a draft of complaint which the San Francisco Regional Office 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, as amended, and

Respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by 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 has 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 sixty (60) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in Section 2.34(b) of its rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Regal Apparel Ltd., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with their office and principal place of business located at 124 E. Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, Calif.

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 Regal Apparel Ltd., a corporation, its successors and assigns, and its officers, and respondent's agents, representatives, and employees, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division, or any 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 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,

[blocks in formation]

after shipment in commerce of any textile 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 the constituent fibers contained therein.

It is further ordered, That respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions.

It is further ordered, That respondent notify the Commission at least thirty (30) days prior to any 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 this order.

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

IN THE MATTER OF

HARBOR BANANA DISTRIBUTORS, INC.*

MODIFIED ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO ALLEGED VIOLATION OF

SEC. 7 OF THE CLAYTON ACT

Docket 8795. Complaint, July 28, 1969 - Modified Order, Jan. 3, 1975 Order modifying an earlier order dated Jan. 12, 1973, 38 F. R. 5160, 82 F.T.C. 53,

pursuant to order of Aug. 22, 1974, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,** denying enforcement of the portion of the order under Counts I and II of the complaint alleging violations of Sections 2(a) and 2(f) of the Clayton Act, as amended, and ordering enforcement of the portion of the order under Count IV of the complaint charging a violation of Section 7 of the Act.

Appearances For the Commission: James T. Halverson. For the respondent: Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, New Orleans, La.

Title of case changed by Commission direction of Apr. 11. 1975, so that in the future no reference will appear in the title to any parties that have been dismissed.

• Neither party filed petition for certiorari.

« AnteriorContinuar »