Lou Littman & Company et al.

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

IN Tile ~IA TTER OF Lor'" LITT~.LAN &; CO1\fP ANY ET AL, CO~SENT ORDER, ETC., IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDEn~\L TIL\DE CO)DII8SlOX AXD THE Fun PRODDCTS LABELING ACT Docket C-31. Complaint, 11'01'. 29. 1961-Dccision, NO1~ 1961 Consent order requiring Detroit furriers to cease \'violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to show on labels and invoices of fur products ,, Complaint 59 F.

when fur was artificially colored and the country of origin of imported furs; failing to show on invoices the true animal name of the fur used in a fur product; and failing to comply in other respects with labeling requirements.

COl\IPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Conlli1ission, having reason to believe that Lou Littman & Company, a corporation, and Louis Littman, Robert Lee Littman, Isabelle Littman and Louis R. !1iller, individually and as officers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its .complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Lou Littman & Company is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of l\lichigan. Individual respondents Louis Littman, Robert Lee Lit.tman Isabelle Littman and Louis R. l\1:iller are President, Vice-President, Secretary, and Treasurer, respectively, of the corporate respondent. Said individual respondents cooperate in formulating, directing and controlling the acts, policies and practices of the corporate respondent including the acts and practices hereinafter referred to. All respondents have their office and principal place of business at 133 East Grand R.iver Avenue Detroit, :Miehigan.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the efl'ec.tiye date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction into commerce and in the sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution, in commerce, of fur products; and have sold, ad~ vertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been mrtde in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms "commerce~ fur:~ and " fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 3. Certain of said fur proc1uc.ts were misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely and deceptively identified ,,-ith respe,ct to the country of origin of the imported furs contrtinec1 in the fur product, in violation of Sect:i on 4 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

LOU LITTMAN & CO. ET AL. 1209 1207 Complaint PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they ,were not labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form presc.ribec1 by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto were fur products with labels which failed: (1) To disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleac.hed, dyed, or other\ise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

(2) To show the country of origin of the imported furs used in the fur product.

PAR. 5. Certain of said fur uroducts were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

(a) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products La-beling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set. forth in abbreviated form, in violation of R.ule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The term "fur origin " preceding the name of the country of origin of the fur was not set forth as required in violation of Rule 12 (e) of said Rules and R.egulations.

(c) Labels aflixed to fur products did not comply with the minimum size requirements of one and three-quarter inches by two and three-quarter inches, in violation of B.ule 27 of said Rules and Regulations.

(d) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was mingled with non-required information, in violation of Rule 29 (a) of said Rules and Regulations.

(e) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the R.uses and R.egulations promulgated thereunder wa.s not completel:v set out on one side of labels, in -violation of Rule 29 (a) of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoieed by the respondents in that they were not invoiced as re':' quired by Sec.t.ion 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the R.ules and Regnlahons promulgated under such Act. Among sneh falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto: "ere invoices pertaining to such fur products which fail eel :

(1) To f;how the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product.

Order 59 F.

(2) To disclose that the fur contained in the fur products were bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored ,vhen such was the fact. (3) To show the country of origin of the imported furs used in the fur product..

:\n. 7. The aforesftid acts and practices of the respondents, as herein alleged, are in -violation of the Fur Products Labeling ACL and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitutes unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION AND ORDER The Conllnission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondents having been served with notice or said determination and with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an ad111ission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only a.nd does not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as set forth in the complaint and waivers and provisions as required by the Col11mission s rules; and The Commission, having considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Lou Littman & Company, is a corporation orga.nized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the la "-s of the State of :Michigan, with its principal office.e and place of business at 133 East Grand River Avenue, in the city of Detroit, State of Michigan.

Respondents Louis Littman, Robert Lee. Littman, Isabelle Littman and Louis R. l\Iiller are omce.rs of said corporation, and their address is the same as that of said corporation.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the. respondents, and the proc.eec1ing is in the public interest.

ORDER It is onlend That Lou Littman &. Company, a corporation, Louis Littman, Robert Lee Littman, Isabelle Littman and Louis R. l\filler , LOU LITTMAN & CO. ET AL. 1211 1207 Order individually and as officers of the said corporation, and respondents representatives, agents and employees, directly or through nny corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale, in commerce or the transportation or distribution in commerce of fur products or in co1111ection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation 01' distribution of fur products which have been made in whole or in part. of fnr which has been shipped ~t11d received in commerce, as "commerce fur" and "fur product:' are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. l\fisl.H'fl.nc1ing fur products by:

A. Failing to affix labels to fnr products showing in words and fig~Jres plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

B. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying any suchprodnct as to the country of origin of the imported furs contained therein.

. C. Failing to affix labels to fur products setting forth the term "fur origin:' preceding the name of the country of origin of imported furs used in :fur products.

D. Affixing to fur products labels that do not comply with the minimum size requirements of one and three-quarter inches by two and three- quarter inches.

E. Setting forth on la.bels affixed to fur products: (1) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the R.ules and R.egulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form;

(2) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fair Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled ,,-ith non-required information.

F. Failing to set forth information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations thereunder on one side of the label 2. Falsely or clece.pt.ively invoicing fur products by failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible aji the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

1 t is fllrthei' ordered That the respondents herein shall within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in wri Ling setting forth in detail the manner and form in \\-which they have complied with this order. Complaint 59 F.