Kind of, but these were not organized by manufacturers, they were more an attempt by particular sections of the antislavery movement to dissociate themselves from the system of slavery for reasons of personal piety and secondarily to show that an economy based on free labor was possible.

Ever since the beginning of the antislavery movement, there have been people who refused to buy things produced by slaves. The first one to come to mind is Benjamin Lay, an 18th-century Quaker, who is said to have worn only clothes he wove himself and subsisted on only milk and water (he was a vegetarian, too).

The Free Produce movement was sort of a more organized and less radical version of Lay's impulse. It existed in both Britain and the US during the early 19th century. In Britain, it was particularly focused on substituting East Indian for Caribbean sugar. There were a number of Free Produce shops in the US during the 19th century, but they had a hard time sourcing goods, and their stuff was always much more expensive than slave-produced goods were. Some abolitionists tried to set up sugar beet farms in New England to provide an alternative to slave-produced sugar (the sugar is said to have tasted awful), and a guy, George W. Taylor, set up an antislavery textile mill in Pennsylvania during the 1850s.

I haven't heard anything about producers not involved in the abolitionist movement in the US advertising their goods as being produced by free labor -- I suspect because there just wasn't that much cotton, tobacco, or indigo being produced by free labor, and the abolitionist market wasn't that lucrative either.