Jack Levine

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

IN THE J\IATTER OF JACK LEVI E TRADING "UNDER HIS OWN NA:ym AKD AS JACK LEVIKE FGRS, ETC.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FED- ERAI.J TRADE CO:)DIISSIOX, TIUJ FUn PRODUCTS LABELING, AND THB WOOL Products LABELING ACTS Docket G-68. Complaint, Feb. 19G2-lJecision, Feb. , 1962 Consent order requiring a furrier ill Bcycr13' Hils, Calif. , to cease YiolatilJg the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to disclose on labels and invoicf':' t11e true animal name of the fur used in fur prorlucts, the country of origin of imported furs, and when furs were artificiall T coloreel: failing to iclentif the manufacturer, etc. , on labels, and to show on invoices when products contained used flu, and to comply in other respects with labeling and invoieing requirements; and by mal;:ng price and yalne claims in advertising in newspapers without maintaining adequate records (1isclosing the facts upon which slich representations were based; and to cease violating the ,Yool Products Laueling Act by failing to c1disclose on labels Llse percentage of the total fiber weight of eacb of the fibers present in ladies sweaters. and sho"-ing the fiber content of s'Yeate1"s as "cashmere " \yHhout setting forth the actual percentage of cashmere fteece contained(l therein. CO:TIPLAIXT Pursua.nt to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act the Fur Products Labeling Act and the IVool Products Labeling Act of 1930 1ld by virtue of the authority "Festec1 in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that. Jnck Levine tra.ding under his mnlname and as Ja,ck Levine Furs Tale of California, and Jack Levine & Company, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated the provisions of said Acts and t.he Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the IVool Products Labeling Act of 1939 , and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof vi-ould be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follo,, PAHAGfu\.PH 1. Respondent Jack Levin is an individual trading under his o"n name and as .Jack Levine Furs, J ale of California, and Jack Levine & Company, "with his office and principal place of business 10e:tcd 'tt 332 South Hendy Driyc, Beverly Hills, Cajif. PAR. 2. Subseqnent to the eiTective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondent has been and is now engaged in t.he introduction into commerce, and in the manufacture for introduction into commerce, and in the sa, , ad\cert.ising and offering for JACK LEVIKE FURS) ETC. 221 220 Complaint sale, in comnlerce, and in the tra.nsportation and distribution, in com- 1nerce, of fur products; and has manufactured for sale, sold, advertised, offered for sRJe, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as the term "commerce, "fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 3. Certain of said fur products were Inisbrandcd in that they \,ere falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely and deceptively identified to show that the fur contained therein was natural when in trut.h and in fact the fur in said fur products was bleached dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Section 4 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded or other"ise falsely and deceptively hlbeled in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling --\'ct in that labels affxed to fur products eontainecl the following guarantee.: "\Ve guanmtee that the fur products or furs specified herein arc not misbranded nor falsely nor deceptively advertised or invoiced under the provisions of the Fur Products Labeling and the Rules and Hegnlations thereunder, \vhen in truth and in fact such products 'were 111isbranc1ed jn violation of the Fur Products LRbeljng Act and the R.ules and R.egulations promulgated thereunder. PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products \\ere misbranded in that they \',ere not labclcd as required under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Hegll1ations promulgated thereunder. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, "ere fur products with lobels which failed:

(n,) To show the true animal name of the fur llsed in t.he fur product;

(b) To disclose that the fur contained in the fur product. was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact;

(c) To show the nn-me, or other identification issued and registe.re, by the Commission, of one or more of the persons who manufactured the fur product for int.production into commerce, introduced it into C01nmeree, sold it in commerce., advertised or offered it for sale in commerce, or transported or distributed it in commerce. PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products \were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not lobcJed in acc.ordaJlce with the Hules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

222 FEDERAL TRADE COj\f:MISSION Decisions Complaint 60 "' (a) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations pr01nulgated thereunder was set forth in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and R.egulations promulgated thereunder "a.s 1ningled with non-required information, in violation of Rule 29 (a) of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations prolllUlgated thereunder ,vas set forth in handwriting on labels, in violation of Rule 20 (b) 01 said Rules and Regulations.

(d) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder ,vas not set forth separately on labels "ith respect to eac.h section of fur products composed of hyo or more sections containing different animal furs, jn violation of Rule 36 of said Hllles and Hegulations. PAR. 7. Certain of said fur products "ere falsely and deceptively invoiced by respondent in that they were not invoiced as required by Section orb) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act am! Rules and Regulations promulgated under such Act.

Among such falsely and dec.eptively invoiced fur prodllct, but not limited thereto, ,were invoices perta,ining to such fur products which failed to show:

1. The true animnJ name of the fur used in the fur product. 2. That the fur product contained used fur, ,yhcn slich '''as the fact.

3. That the fur contained in the fur product ,vas blend.hec1 dyed or otherwise artificially colored, when such was tbe fact. 1. The country of origin of imported furs conta Incd in the fur products.

PAR. 8. Certain of srLid fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that respondent set forth on invoices pertaining to fur products the name of an animaJother than the name of the, animal that produced the fur, in viohttion of Section 0 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 9. Certain of said fur products "ere falsely and deceptively invoicetl in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that t.hey were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and l\egulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) Information required under Section o(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated . .

JACK LBVINE FURS, ETC. 223 220 Complaint thereunder was set forth in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The term "Broadtail Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required, in violation of Rule 8 of said Rules and Regulations. (c) The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required, in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

(d) The disclosure "secondhand", where required, was not set forth in violation of Rule 23 of said Rules and Regulations. (e) Required item numbers 'IVere not set forth, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations.

\R 10. Respondents advertised fui' products in the Los Angeles Times, a newspaper published in the City of Los Angeles, State of California, and having t wide circu1ntion "in imid state and nuious other States of the United States, Respondent in advertising fur prod nets for sale as aforesaid, made claims and representations respecting prices and values of fur products. Said representfLtions were of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Rcgn1ntions promulgated under the Fur Products Lflbeling Act. Hcspondent in making such claims and representations failed to maintain fun and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations were based in violation of Rule 44(e) of said Rules and Regulations.

Among and typical of the chims a,ud representations contained in such advertisements, but not limited thereto were the :following: Here is bow you can buy $7!J5 mink stoles for only $3tJ3. , , .Cerulean Autumn Haze, Tourmaline and other matchless mi,nk stoles.. . . usually $795 in fine stores. . Jack Levine priced to you.. .. . only $B9;: plus tax. .

PAR. 11. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent, os herein a.alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Aet and the Rules a.nd Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive a.cts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. PAR. 12. Subsequent to the effective date of the IY 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939, respondents have introduced into commerce sold, transported, distribut.ed, delivered for shipment, and offered for sale in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in said Act, wool products as " wool products" are defined therein.

PAR. 13. Certa.in of said wool products "ere misbranded by respondent in that they were not stamped, tagged Or labeled as re- 224 FEDETIAL TRADE COML\JISSION DECISIOKS Decision and Order 60 F.

quired by Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products L"beling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

Among such misbranded wool products were ladies' sweaters with labels which failed to disclosc the percentage of the total fiber weight of each of the fibers present in the product. PAR. 14. Certain of said wool products were misbra,nded in violation of the ,Vool Products Labeling Act in that they "ere not Jabcled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated there. under in that the lobeJs attached to the wool products showed the fiber content as "cashmere" without setting forth the actual percentage of the hair or fleece of the cashmere goat contained therein, in violation of Rule 19 of the aforesaid nnles and Heg-nlations. 'IH. 15. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth jn Paragra-phs Thirtecn and Fourteen \were, and ate, in violation of the ooll roc111cts Labeling A d of 193D and the Hllles and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, and now constitut.e, unfair and cleeepbve acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce, within the intent and men.ning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DF.CTSIOX A:)W omn:n Tho Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondent nalnecl in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission A , the Fur Products Labeling Act and the ,Yool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and the respondent having been served with notice.e of sajd determination and with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together with it proposed form of order; and Tho respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission hy the respondent of aU the jurisdictional facts set forth in the compbint to issue 11Crein, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for f:settlement purposes only md does not constitute an admission by respondent that the JrUY has been vio1ntec1 as set forth in such c.omplaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission rules: and The Commission, having considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in thc form contemplated by said agreement makes the foJ1owing jurisdictional findings, and enters the follo"ing order:

1. Respondent .Tack L.cvine is nn individual.l trading under his o"n name and a.s Jack Levine Furs, J a)e of California, and Jack Levine & , JACK LEVINE FURS , ETC. 225 220 Decision and Order Company ,'with his offee and principal pla, ce of business located at 332 South Beverly Drive, Beverly I-rills, Calif. . The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORm It ,is OI'de)'ed That respondent .Jack Levine, an individual trading under his own na111e or as Jack Levine Furs, J a.le of California, or Jack Levine & Company, or under' any ot.her name, and respondent's representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, or manufacture for introduction, into commerce, or the sale, a,advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce of any fur product; or in connection with the nmnufacture for sale sale, advertising, oiIering for sale, transportat.ion or distribution, of any fur product which is made in -whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as "commerce fur" and fur product" are dcfmed in the Fnr Products Labeling Act do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. :Misbranding fur products by:

A. Failing to affix labels to fur products shoiVing in words and figures 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. Representing directly or by implication that the fur contained in the fur products is natural, when such is not the fact. C. Setting out a guaranty on labels affxed thereto that such fur products are not misbranded or falsely or deceptively invoiced or advertised under the provisions of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the 1\ules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder, when such is not the fact.

D. Setting forth on labels aflixed to fur products: (1) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Reguhtions promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

(2) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled with non-recruired information.

(3) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Aet and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in ha,ndwriting.

226 FEDERAL TRADE COM::lISSIOK DECISIOKS Decision and Order 60 F.

E. Failing to set forth separately on hbels attachedlo fur products composed of t,,"o 01' more sections containing different animal furs the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and R.egulatiolls promulgated thereunder with respect to the fur comprising each section. 2. Falsely and deceptjvely invoicing fur products by: A. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing in \fords and figures plainly legible a1l the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

B. Setting forth on invoic.es pertaining to fur products the name or names of any animal or animals other than the name or names of the animal or animals producing the fur contained in the fur prodacts as specified in the Fur Products N nme Guide and as prescribed under' the Rules and Hcglllations.

C. Failing to set forth the term "Bl'oadtflil Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the word "Lamb"

D. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb where an election is made to use that. term instead of the term "Dyed LHllb E. Failing to disclose that fur products are "secondhand, when such is the fact.

F. Failing to set forth the item nlll1ber or mark assigned to a fur product.

G. Setting forth information required under Section orb) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act ana t.he Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

3. J\laking pricing claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under' the Fur Products Labeling Act unless there are maintained by respondent full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations arc sed.

I t is .f"lthe-r ordel'ed That. respondent .J ack Levine, an individual t.trading under his own name or as Jack Levine Furs, Ja.le of California, or J aek Levine & Company, or under any other name, and respondent' s representatives, agents and employees directly or t.through any corporate or other device, in connection with thc introcluction into commerce, or the ofiering for sale, sale, transportation or delivery for shipment, in commerce of any wool product, as "wool product" and "commerce" are defined in the W 001 Products Labeling GLA:VIORENE , INC. 227 220 Complaint Act of 1039 do fortl1\with ce,ase and desist from misbranding such products by :

1. Failing to securely ntrx to, or place on, each product, a stamp, tag-, label or other 1neans of identification showing in a clear and conspicuous ma.nner each element. of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939. 2. Stamping, tagging, labeling or otherwise identifying such products as containing the hair or fleece of the Cashmere goat without setting out in a clear and conspicuous Inanner on each such stamp, tag, label or means of identification the percentage of such Cashmere therein.

It is further ordered That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon him of this order, file with the COllmission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form