The introduction, or manufacture for introduction, into commerce, or the sale, transportation, or distribution, in commerce, of any wool product which is misbranded within the meaning of this subchapter or the rules and regulations hereunder, is unlawful and shall be an unfair method of competition, and an unfair and deceptive act or practice, in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act; and any person who shall manufacture or deliver for shipment or ship or sell or offer for sale in commerce, any such wool product which is misbranded within the meaning of this subchapter and the rules and regulations hereunder is guilty of an unfair method of competition, and an unfair and deceptive act or practice, in commerce within the meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
This section shall not apply—
(a) To any common carrier or contract carrier in respect to a wool product shipped or delivered for shipment in commerce in the ordinary course of its business; or
(b) To any person manufacturing, delivering for shipment, shipping, selling, or offering for sale, for exportation from the United States to any foreign country a wool product branded in accordance with the specifications of the purchaser and in accordance with the laws of such country.
Notes of Decisions
Nat'l Petroleum Refiners Ass'n v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 482 F.2d 672 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
“§ 13 (1970), is also empowered “after due investigation and hearing to all interested parties, [to] fix and establish quantity limits, and revise the same as it finds necessary, as to particular commodities or classes of commodities, where it finds that available purchasers in…”
United States v. H. M. Prince Textiles, Inc., 262 F. Supp. 383 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).
“PROVIDED that the foregoing provisions concerning misbranded shall not be construed to prohibit acts permitted by paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 3 of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939; and provided further, that nothing contained in this order shall be construed as…”
Warren Corp. v. Goldwert Textile Sales, Inc., 581 F. Supp. 897 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
“§ 1125 (a), and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 (“the Wool Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 68a and b, by misrepresenting the camel’s hair content of the fabric.”
United States v. Woody Fashions, Inc., 190 F. Supp. 709 (S.D.N.Y. 1961).
“1 Counts 1 through 8 of the indictment allege that the defendants unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly manufactured, delivered for shipment, shipped, sold and offered for sale in interstate commerce certain misbranded wool products. The several counts allege the dates, the items,…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 68a(a) — 1 case
United States v. H. M. Prince Textiles, Inc., 262 F. Supp. 383 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).
“PROVIDED that the foregoing provisions concerning misbranded shall not be construed to prohibit acts permitted by paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 3 of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939; and provided further, that nothing contained in this order shall be construed as…”
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.