Herbert Leivent

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

In the Marrer or HERBERT LEIVENT ET AL. TRADING AS STUYVESANT SPORTSWEAR CO.

‘CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 7608. Complaint, Oct. 18, 1959—Decision, June 21, 1960 ‘Consent order requiring Brooklyn, N.Y., manufacturers to cease violating the Wool Products Labeling Act by such practices as labeling girls’ coats falsely as “ALL WOOL,” and by failing to set forth separately on labels, ete., the fiber content of interlinings.

Mr. Charles Donelan for the Commission.

Mr, Benedict Ginsberg, of New York, N.Y., for respondents. Initia Decision By Enear A. Burrir, Heartne Examiner On October 18, 1959 the Federal Trade Commission issued its ‘complaint against the above-named respondents charging them with violating the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Wool Products Labeling Act in connection with the manufacturing for introduction into commerce, introducing into commerce, selling, transporting, distributing, delivering for shipment, and offering for sale of wool products. On December 14, 1959, the respondents and counsel supporting the complaint entered into an agreement containing a consent. order to cease and desist in accordance with section 3.25(a) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Commission. Under the foregoing agreement, the respondents admit the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint and agree, among other things, that the cease and desist order there set forth may be entered without further notice and shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing. The agreement includes a waiver by the respondents of all rights to challenge or contest STUYVESANT SPORTSWEAR CO. 1541 1540 Order the validity of the order issuing in accordance therewith; and recites that the said agrement shall not become a part of the official record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission, and that it is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondents that they have vio- Jated the law as alleged in the complaint. The hearing examiner finds that the content of the said agreement meets all the requirements of section 8.25(b) of the Rules of Practice. This proceeding having now come on for final consideration by the hearing examiner on the complaint and the aforesaid agreement for consent order, and it appearing that said agreement provides for an appropriate disposition of this proceeding, the aforesaid agreement is hereby accepted and is ordered filed upon becoming part of the Commission’s decision in accordance with section 3.21 of the Rules of Practice; and in consonance with the terms of said agrement, the hearing examiner makes the following jurisdictional findings and order:

1. Respondents, Herbert Leivent and Abraham Leivent are individuals and co-partners trading as Stuyvesant Sportswear Co., with offices and principal place of business located at 525 Franklin Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents hereinabove named. The complaint states a cause of action against s:.:.1 respondents under the Federal Trade Commission Act, and this proceeding is in the interest. of the public.

ORDER It is ordered, That respondents, Herbert Leivent and Abraham Leivent, individually and as co-partners trading as Stuyvesant Sportswear Co., or under any other name, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction or manufacture for introduction into commerce, or the offering for sale, sale, transportation, or distribution in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, of girls’ coats or other wool products, as such products are defined in and subject to the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding their products by:

1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling or otherwise identifying such products as to character or amount of the constituent fibers included therein.

2, Failing to securely affix or place on each such product a stamp, Decision 56 F.T.C.

tag, label or other means of identification showing in a clear and conspicuous manner:

(a) The percentage of the total fiber weight of such wool products, exclusive of ornamentation not. exceeding five percentum of said total 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 five percentum or more, and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers:

(b) The maximum percentage of the total weight of such wool products of any non-fibrous loading, filling, or adulterating matter. 3. Failing to separately set forth on the required stamp, tag, label or other mark of identification the character and amount of constituent fibers contained in the interlinings of the said wool products in violation of Rule 24 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to section 3.21 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 21st day of June, 1960, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly :

It is ordered, That the respondents herein shall, with sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist.