15 U.S.C. § 68

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in this subchapter—(a) The term “person” means an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or any other form of business enterprise, plural or singular, as the case demands.(b) The term “wool” means the fiber from the fleece of the sheep or lamb or hair of the Angora or Cashmere goat (and may include the so-called specialty fibers from the hair of the camel, alpaca, llama, and vicuna) which has never been reclaimed from any woven or felted wool product.(c) The term “recycled wool” means (1) the resulting fiber when wool has been woven or felted into a wool product which, without ever having been utilized in any way by the ultimate consumer, subsequently has been made into a fibrous state, or (2) the resulting fiber when wool or reprocessed wool has been spun, woven, knitted, or felted into a wool product which, after having been used in any way by the ultimate consumer, subsequently has been made into a fibrous state.(d) The term “wool product” means any product, or any portion of a product, which contains, purports to contain, or in any way is represented as containing wool or recycled wool.(e) The term “Commission” means the Federal Trade Commission.(f) The term “Federal Trade Commission Act” means the Act of Congress entitled “An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes”, approved September 26, 1914, as amended, and the Federal Trade Commission Act approved March 21, 1938.(g) The term “commerce” means commerce among the several States or with foreign nations, or in any Territory of the United States or in the District of Columbia, or between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory and any State or foreign nation, or between the District of Columbia and any State or Territory or foreign nation.(h) The term “Territory” includes the insular possessions of the United States and also any Territory of the United States.(Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 871, § 2, 54 Stat. 1128; Pub. L. 96–242, § 1, May 5, 1980, 94 Stat. 344.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Act of September 26, 1914, referred to in subsec. (f), is act Sept. 26, 1914, ch. 311, 38 Stat. 717, which is classified generally to subchapter I (§ 41 et seq.) of this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 58 of this title and Tables.

The Federal Trade Commission Act approved March 21, 1938, referred to in subsec. (f), is act Mar. 21, 1938, ch. 49, 52 Stat. 111. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

Amendments

1980—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 96–242, § 1(a), substituted “recycled wool” for “reprocessed wool” as term defined, designated existing definition as cl. (1), and added cl. (2).

Subsecs. (d) to (i). Pub. L. 96–242, § 1(b)–(d), redesignated subsecs. (e) to (i) as (d) to (h), respectively, and, in subsec. (d) as so redesignated, substituted “containing wool or recycled wool” for “containing wool, reprocessed wool, or reused wool”. Former subsec. (d), which defined term “reused wool”, was struck out.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1980 Amendment

Pub. L. 96–242, § 3, May 5, 1980, 94 Stat. 344, provided that: “The amendments made by this Act [amending this section and section 68b of this title] shall take effect with respect to wool products manufactured on or after the date sixty days after the date of enactment of this Act [May 5, 1980].”

Effective Date

Act Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 871, § 12, 54 Stat. 1133, provided that: “This Act [this subchapter] shall take effect nine months after the date of its passage.”

Short Title of 2006 Amendment

Pub. L. 109–428, § 1, Dec. 20, 2006, 120 Stat. 2913, provided that: “This Act [amending section 68b of this title and enacting provisions set out as a note under section 68b of this title] may be cited as the ‘Wool Suit Fabric Labeling Fairness and International Standards Conforming Act’.”

Short Title

Act Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 871, § 1, 54 Stat. 1128, provided that: “This Act [this subchapter] may be cited as the ‘Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939’.”

Separability

Act Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 871, § 13, 54 Stat. 1133, provided that: “If any provision of this Act [this subchapter], or the application thereof to any person, partnership, corporation, or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of such provision to any other person, partnership, corporation, or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.”

Executive DocumentsTransfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of Federal Trade Commission, with certain exceptions, to Chairman of such Commission, see Reorg. Plan No. 8 of 1950, § 1, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3175, 64 Stat. 1264, set out under section 41 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases, 1946–2019 · leading case: Cashmere & Camel Hair Mfrs. Inst. v. Saks Fifth Avenue, 284 F.3d 302 (1st Cir. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cashmere & Camel Hair Mfrs. Inst. v. Saks Fifth Avenue, 284 F.3d 302 (1st Cir. 2002). “The Wool Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. § 68 et seq., requires recycled garments and fabrics, including cashmere, to be labeled as such.”

State Ex Rel. Redden v. Disc. Fabrics, Inc., 615 P.2d 1034 (Or. 1980). · cites it 2× “We have not overlooked the contention by defendant that "the State of Oregon has no right to enter into the field of regulation of interstate commerce on issues of fabric labeling because of preemption by federal law.”

Jacob Siegel Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 327 U.S. 608 (1946). “5 The opinion of the Commission goes no further than to find that “the name ‘Alpacuna’ is misleading and deceptive to á substantial portion of the purchasing public in that it represents or implies” that the coats contain vicuna; and that as a result substantial trade is…”

The Knit With v. Knitting Fever, Inc., 625 F. App'x 27 (3rd Cir. 2015). “TKW contends that the Wool Products Labeling Act (WPLA), specifically 15 U.S.C. § 68 (c), imposes a “duty to label [that- is] independent of any obligation KFI assumed in its contractual relationship with TKW.”

Harry Carr v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 302 F.2d 688 (1st Cir. 1962). · cites it 3× “The pertinent statute is the Wool Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 68 -68j. There is a criminal penalty provision, § 68h.”

United States v. H. M. Prince Textiles, Inc., 262 F. Supp. 383 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). · cites it 2× “and Hugo Prince, among others, charging them with violations of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, 15 U.S.C. § 68 et seq. On August 6, 1953 a consent cease and desist order was issued against the defendants.”

Textile & Apparel Grp., Am. Importers Ass'n v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 410 F.2d 1052 (D.C. Cir. 1969). “t such party must be able to establish that the wool products have been subject to the testing procedures provided by this section.”

United States v. Charles Messina, 507 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1975). “Fashions, later identified the sweaters as bearing his firm’s “RN”, a registered number assigned by the Federal Trade Commission under the Wool Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. § 68 , see 16 C.F.R. §§ 300.3 (a)(3), 300.”

RH MacY & Co. v. Tinley, 249 F. Supp. 778 (D.D.C. 1966). “Having grounds to believe that woolen sweaters manufactured in Italy and imported into the United States were mislabeled as to their mohair content, the Federal Trade Commission (herein the Commission) commenced an investigation to determine whether or not such sweaters were…”

Nat'l Petroleum Refiners Ass'n v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 340 F. Supp. 1343 (D.D.C. 1972). “Wool Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 68 -68j (1971) ; Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, 15 U.”

United States v. Woody Fashions, Inc., 190 F. Supp. 709 (S.D.N.Y. 1961). “The indictment charges violations of provisions of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 ( 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 68 -68J). Counts 9 through 55 allege that the defendants, who were manufacturers of wool products, subject to the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, failed to keep proper…”

United States v. Fishman, 15 F.R.D. 151 (S.D.N.Y. 1953). “Plaintiff’s position is correct 6 and defendants’ motion to vacate and quash is denied without prejudice to defendants claiming immunity from self-incrimination in answering such of the interrogatories and requests for admissions, dated August 3, 1953, as they deem in violation…”

Show all 14 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.