[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 209 (Monday, October 31, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-26937]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: October 31, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[File No. 922 3236]

 

Hyde Athletic Industries, Inc.; Proposed Consent Agreement With 
Analysis To Aid Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Corrections in Analysis To Aid Public Comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document contains a corrected version of the Analysis to 
Aid Public Comment which was published on Friday, September 23, 1994 
(59 FR 48892), in connection with a consent agreement accepted subject 
to final approval by the Federal Trade Commission. The consent 
agreement would settle alleged violations of federal law prohibiting 
unfair acts and practices and unfair methods of competition by 
prohibiting a Massachusetts footwear marketer from, among other things, 
misrepresenting the extent to which any footwear is made in the United 
States. It would also require the respondent to maintain materials 
relied upon for any country of origin representations and to distribute 
copies of the Commission order to its operating divisions and certain 
company officials. The corrected version of the Analysis to Aid Public 
Comment is attached.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
C. Steven Baker, Chicago Regional Office, Federal Trade Commission, 55 
East Monroe St., Suite 1437, Chicago IL 60603. (312) 353-8156.

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment

    The Federal Trade Commission has accepted an agreement, subject to 
final approval, to a proposed consent order from respondent Hyde 
Athletic Industries, Inc.
    The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for 
sixty (60) days for reception of comments by interested persons. 
Comments received during this period will become part of the public 
record. After sixty (60) days, the Commission will again review the 
agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should 
withdraw from the agreement and take other appropriate action or make 
final the agreement's proposed order.
    This matter concerns country of origin claims made by the 
respondent for its ``Saucony'' brand footwear, which appeared in 
respondent's advertising and on labeling for certain of its footwear. 
The Commission's complaint charges that respondent represented that 
Saucony footwear is made in the United States, that is, that all or 
virtually all of the component parts of the footwear are made in the 
United States, and all or virtually all of the labor in assembling the 
footwear is performed in the United States. The complaint alleges that 
this claim is false and misleading because a substantial amount of 
Saucony footwear is assembled in foreign countries of foreign component 
parts, and a substantial amount of Saucony footwear assembled in the 
United States consists largely of foreign component parts.
    The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to remedy 
the violations charged and to prevent the respondent from engaging in 
similar acts and practices in the future. Part I of the proposed order 
prohibits the respondent from misrepresenting, directly or by 
implication, the extent to which any footwear is made in the United 
States. This Part provides, however, that ``Made in the USA'' claims 
will not violate the order if all or virtually all of the parts and 
labor are of domestic origin. This Part also contains a safe harbor 
provision that specifies language respondent can use when making a 
country of origin disclosure for footwear that is made or assembled in 
one country in whole or in part of materials made in another country.
    Part II of the proposed consent order provides that the respondent 
may continue to deplete its existing inventory of footwear and footwear 
packaging printed or labeled prior to the date of service of this 
order, provided that the respondent itself does not sell or distribute 
that inventory more than ninety (90) days after the date of service of 
the order.
    The remaining parts of the proposed consent order require the 
respondent to maintain materials relied upon in disseminating any 
country of origin representations, to distribute copies of the order to 
each of its operating divisions and to certain company officials, to 
notify the Commission of certain changes in corporate structure, and to 
file one or more compliance reports.
    The standard set forth in the complaint and proposed order for an 
unqualified ``Made in the USA'' (or the like) claim is that all or 
virtually all of the parts and labor used in the manufacture of the 
product must be of domestic origin. This standard is consistent with 
Commission case precedent,\1\ certain other statutes enforced by the 
Commission,\2\ and extrinsic evidence obtained by the Commission 
regarding consumer perceptions of ``Made in USA'' claims. The 
Commission would be interested in receiving any information relevant to 
its standard for ``Made in USA'' claims, including information on the 
competitive and other effects of this standard and on consumer 
perceptions of country of origin claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\See, e.g., Windsor Pen Corp., 64 F.T.C. 454 (1964); Joseph H. 
Meyer Bros., 47 F.T.C. 49 (1950); Vulcan Lamp Works, Inc., 32 F.T.C. 
7 (1940). The Commission's advisory opinions have also set forth 
this standard. See, e.g., Advisory Opinion No. 215, Misrepresenting 
Hoist as ``Made in U.S.A.,'' 73 F.T.C. 1321 (1968).
    \2\Wool Products Labeling Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 68-68j (1973 & 
Supp. 1994); Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, 15 U.S.C. 
Secs. 70-70k (1972 & Supp. 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the 
proposed consent order. It is not intended to constitute an official 
interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any 
way their terms.
Donal S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-26937 Filed 10-28-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M