RESTRAINING AND INJUNCTIVE ORDERS OF THE COURTS FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. MARTIN BERDY 1 Civ. A. No. 122–366—F.T.C. Docket 6950 (United States District Court, S.D.N.Y. July 23, 1957) Order of the District Court granting preliminary injunction to restrain defendant from misbranding wool products until issuance and final disposition of the Commission's complaint. Mr. Charles F. Canavan, Mr. Daniel T. Coughlin, of Washington, D.C., and Mr. Carlo J. Aimone, of New York City, for the Commission. Before EDWARD J. DIMOCK, District Judge. ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION This cause coming on to be heard on the motion of plaintiff for a preliminary injunction; and due notice having been given to defendant; and the defendant Martin Berdy appeared in person and agreed that a preliminary injunction might issue; and the court having considered the verified complaint filed herein together with the affidavits submitted in support thereof; and being fully advised in the premises, is of the opinion that the plaintiff has made a proper showing for a preliminary injunction under the provisions of section 7(b) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and finds: That the defendant has been violating section 3 of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 in this, that said defendant has introduced, sold, distributed, delivered for shipment, and offered for sale, in commerce, wool products, which are misbranded within the intent and meaning of such Act and the Rules and Regulations thereunder. It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that, until complaint is issued by the Federal Trade Commission under the Federal Trade Commission Act, and such complaint is dismissed by the Commission or set aside by a court on review, and until order to cease and desist thereon by the Commission has become final within the meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the defendant Martin Berdy, his agents, servants and employees, be and hereby are restrained and enjoined from: Introducing, manufacturing for introduction, selling, distributing, 1 Complaint issued Nov. 20, 1957. delivering for shipment, and offering for sale, in commerce, any product containing, purporting to contain, or represented as containing, wool, reprocessed wool, or reused wool, which is misbranded in the following respects: 1. By attaching tags, labels or otherwise identifying wool products as wool without setting forth the percentage thereof. 2. By failing to affix to wool products stamps, tags or labels showing: (a) the percentage of the total fiber weight of such wool product, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5 per centum of said fiber weight, of (1) wool, (2) reprocessed wool, (3) reused wool, (4) each fiber other than wool where said percentage by weight of such fiber is 5 per centum or more and the aggregate of all other fibers. (b) The maximum percentages of the total weight of such wool product of any nonfibrous loading filling or adulterating matter. (c) The name or registered identification number of the manufacturer of such wool product or of one or more persons engaged in introducing such wool product into commerce, or in the offering for sale, sale, transportation, distribution or delivery for shipment thereof in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939. Done this 23d day of July 1957. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. KULIN WASTE Civ. A. No. 57-707-W-F.T.C. Docket 6983 (United States District Court, D. Mass. Aug. 1, 1957) Order of the District Court granting preliminary injunction to restrain misbranding of wool products until issuance and final disposition of the Commission's complaint. Mr. Charles F. Canavan and Mr. Daniel T. Coughlin, Washington, D.C., for the Commission. Before CHARLES E. WAYZANSKI, District Judge. ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION This cause having come on for hearing on plaintiff's verified complaint, with supporting affidavits, and on its motion for preliminary injunction, and defendants having answered "No opposition," and 1 Complaint issued Dec. 13, 1957, as "Docket 6983." It appearing that the Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter; and The Court having concluded, as a result of the consent by the defendants to the injunction, that the defendants have been violating section 3 of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 by: Introducing, manufacturing for introduction, selling, distributing, delivering for shipment and offering for sale in commerce wool products which are misbranded; and The Court having further concluded that the plaintiff has made a proper showing for a preliminary injunction under the provisions of section 7(b) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, Now, therefore, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed; That the defendants, Kulin Waste Company, a corporation, Louis Kulin, Abraham Kulin, and Michael Silver, individually and as officers of such corporation; and each of them, their representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, be, and they hereby are, restrained and enjoined from: A. Introducing, manufacturing for introduction, selling, distributing, delivering for shipment or offering for sale in commerce wool stocks or any other products containing, purporting to contain or represented as containing wool, reprocessed wool or reused wool, as those terms are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, which are misbranded: 1. By attaching or using stamps, tags, labels, or any other means of identification, which represent that such products are of a specific quality content, unless such is a fact; 2. By 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 the percentage of the total fiber weight of such wool product, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5 per centum of the total fiber weight, of (1) wool; (2) reprocessed wool; (3) reused wool; (4) each fiber other than wool, if said percentage by weight of such fiber is 5 per centum or more; and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers; 3. By failing to state the maximum percentages of the total weight of the wool product, of any nonfibrous loading, filling, or adulterating matter; 4. By failing to state the name or registered identification number of the manufacturer of the wool product and/or the name of one or more persons subject to section 3 with respect to such wool product. until complaint is issued by the Federal Trade Commission under the Federal Trade Commission Act and such complaint dismissed by the Commission or set aside by the Court on review; or until order to cease and desist, made thereon by the Commission, has become final within the meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. It is further ordered that this order of injunction be issued without bond and that it shall be effective forthwith. It is further ordered that costs in the sum of the Clerk are hereby imposed against the defendants. Done this 1st day of August 1957. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. as taxed by IRIE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., ET AL.1 Civ. A. No. 124-341-F.T.C. Docket 6984 (United States District Court, S.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 1957) Order of the District Court granting preliminary injunction restraining defendants from misbranding wool products until issuance of the Commission's complaint and final disposition of the matter. Mr. Carlo J. Aimone, of New York City, Mr. Charles F. Canavan and Mr. Charles W. O'Connell, both of Washington, D.C., for Federal Trade Commission. Mr. Arthur I. Winard of Lane and Winard, New York City, for all defendants. Before LESTER J. RYAN, District Judge. ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION This cause having come on for hearing on plaintiff's verified complaint, with supporting affidavits, and on its motion for preliminary injunction, and defendants having filed a verified answer with supporting affidavits, an affidavit of consent on said motion, and having answered "no opposition" and, It appearing that the Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter; and The Court having concluded, from plaintiff's complaint, the affidavits in support thereof and the consent of the defendants to a preliminary injunction, that there are sufficient grounds for the issuance of a preliminary injunction against the defendants under the provisions of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939; and 1 Complaint issued Dec. 13, 1957, and order to cease and desist, Mar. 19, 1958, 54 F.T.C. 1192. |