Leo Esserman

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

IN THE MATTER OF LEO ESSER fAK 'trading c\S ESSER1L\JI CO. CONSENT ORDER ) ETC. ) IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND Tile :FUR l' RODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 0-581. Complaint, Sept. 196'J- IJecision, Sept. , 1963 Consent order requiring a cw York City manufacturing furrier to cease "Violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failng, on labels and invoices. to show the true animal name of fur, to use the term "Persian Lamb" as reo quired, and to describe fur products \vhieh ,were llot artificially colored af: natural" ; failing, on invoices, to disclose when fur was bleached, etc. ; and to show the country of origin of imported furs; failng in other respects to comply with labeling and in,aicing- l'equil'ementf3, and furnishing f!dse guarantees that fur products were not misbranded, falsely invoiced or false. ly advertised.

COMPLAINT 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 Commission having re. son to believe that Leo Esserman, an individual trading as Esscrman Co. , hereinafter referred to as respondent, has yiolatecl the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Reguhtions 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 Leo Esse.rman is an individual trading under the name Esserman Co.

Respondent is a manufacturer of fur products \with his offee and principal place of business located Pet 231 ,Vest 29th Street K e\v York, New York.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondent has been and is now engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in the l1Hll1UIa,cturc for 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 has manufactured for sale, sold, advertised, offered Tor sale, transported and distributed fur products l.which have been made in whole or in part of furs which have. been shipped and receiv ed in commer e as the terms "commerce fur:' and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 3. Certain of sltid fur products were misbranded in that they were not labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4(2) of 620 FBDBRAL TRADE CO:\Il'lIS,S'ION DECISIONS COl1plaint 63 F.

the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto "ere fur products "ith labels "which failed to sho" the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product.

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products "ere 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 foJJo"ing respects:

(a) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder "as set forth on labels in ahbrcviated form in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regnlations.

(b) The term "Persian Lamb" "as not. set forth on labels in thc manner required by law, in violation of Rule 8 of said Rnles and Regulations.

(c) The term "natural" was not used on labels to describe fur products "which ''Iere not pointed, bleached, dyed, t.ip-dyed, or otherwise art.ificiaJJy colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

(d) The term "assembled" was used on la.bels to describe fur products composed of pieces in lieu of the required terms ! in violation of Rule 20 (d) of said Rules and Regulations. (e) Information required under Sect.ion 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations promulgat.ed t.hereunder "as not. set. forth in a legible manner, in violation of Rule 29 (a) of said Rules and Regulations.

(f) Informat.ion required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Aet and the Rules and R,eguhtions promulgated thereunder was set forth in hand"writing on labels, in violation of Rule 29 (b) of sftid Rules and R.egnlations.

(g) Information required under Section 4(2) of t.he Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Reguht.ions promulgat.ed thereunder ,vas not set forth in t.he required sequence, in violation of Hule 30 of saiel Rules pond Regulations.

(h) Information requireelunder Sect.ion 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling ..'\ct and t.he R.ules and R.regula.tions promulgat.ed thereunder was not set forth epfLratcly on labels with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sect.ions containing diffcnmt fmimnl furs, in violation of Rule 36 of said Rules and Regula.tions.

(i) R.equired item numbers were, not set forth on labels in violat.ion of Rule 4-0 of said H,ules nnd Regulations. ESSER jA" CO. 621 G19 Complaint PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondent in t.hat they were. not invoiced as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under such Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, ",were fur products covered by invoices which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of the fur llsed in the fur prod. uet.

2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur product was bie,ach- , dyed, or othenvise artificially colored when such was the fact. 3. To show the country of origin of imported furs used in fur products.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance \with the R.ules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the foi1owing respects: (a) Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Hl1les and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth on invoices in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of saiel Hules and Regulat.ions.

(b) The term Pel'Si ln LamV' was not set. forth on invoices in the manner required by hnv, in violation of H,ule. 8 of said Rule,s and Regulations.

(e) The term ' natural:' ,,"as not used on invoices to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Tillie lD(g) of 2aid Rules andRegulations. (d) Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Hules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth separately on invoices with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs, in violation of R.uie 36 of said Rules and Regulations.

(e) Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the H,uses and RegnbJioJls promulgated thereunder \\"as not set forth on invoices in a cJeal', legible, distinct and conspicuous manner, in violation of Hnle 37 of said Rules and Regulat.ions.

(f) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices in violation of Hule 40 of said Rules and Hegulations. PAR. 7. Respondent furnished false guaranties HUlt certain of his fur products "ere not misbranded, falsely invoiced or falsely ad- 622 FEDERAL TRADE COI\.flISSION DECISIONS. Decision and. Order 63 F. vertised when respondent in furnishing such gua.ranties had reason to believe that fur products so falsely guaranteed would be introduced, sold, transported or dist.ributed in commerce, in violation of Section 10 (b) of the Fur Product.s Labeling Act. PAIL 8. The aforesaid acts and pra,ctices of respondent, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. DECISION AND Onder The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondent named in the caption hereof with violation of the I' ederal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondent having been served with notice of s lid determinat.ion and -with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together wit.h a proposed form or order; and The respondent and counsel ior t.he Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondent of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to issue herein, a statement that t.he signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent that the law has been violated as set forth in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission rules; and The Commission, having considered the agreement, l1ereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. R.respondent Leo Esserman is an individual trading under the name Esserman Co., with his offce and principal place or business located at 231 IV cst 29th Street, in the city of Jlew York, State of New York.

2. 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.

ORDER It is ordered That respondent Leo Esserman, an individual, trading under his own na11e as Esserman Co., or under any other trade name, and respondent's representatives, agents and employees, di- \ ESSERMAX CO. 623 619 Decisi01) and Older rectly or through any corporate or other device, in connection \with the, introduction, or manufacture for introduction, into commerce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce, of any fur product; or in conne,c.tion with the manufacture for sale, sale, advertising, offering for saJe, transportation 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 defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: A. Misbranding fur products by:

1. Failing to affx labels to fur products showing in words and in figures plainly legible all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Sctting forth informat.ion required under Section 4(2) of t.he Fur Products Labeling Act and t.he Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form on labels affxed to fur products.

3. Failing to set forth the term "Persian Lamb" on labels in the manner required. where an election is made to USe that term instead of the word "Lamb"

4. Failing to set forth the term "Nat.ural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on htbels under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Hulcs and Regulations promulgated t.hcreunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

5. Setting forth the term "assembled" or any term of like import as part of the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products composed in whole or in substantial part of paws tails, bellies, sides, flanks, gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap pieces or waste fur.

6. Failing to set forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in a legible manner. 7. Setting fort.h informat.ion required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Reglllations promulgated thereunder in handwriting on labels affxed to fur products.

8. Failing to set forth informat.ion required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and 624 FEDERAL TRADE CO:\nlISSION DECISIOKS Drcision and Ordel' 63 F. Regulations promulgated thereunder on labels in the sequence required by Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

9. Failing to set forth separately on labels attached to fur products composed of t\,.o or 11101'8 sections containing different animal fur the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to the fur comprising each section.

10. Failing to set forth on labcls the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed in each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Setting forth information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Prod nets Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promnlgated t.hereunder in abbreviated form. 3. Failing to set forth the term "Persian Lamb" iu the manner required 'where an elect.ion is made to use that term instead of the word "Lalnb"

4. Failing to set forth the term at-ural" as part of the information required to be disdosed on invoices under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules a,nel R.egulations pro mlllgat,ed thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleacbed, dyed, t.ip-dyed or other"ise artificially colored.

5. Failing to set forth separately information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and R.regula.tions promulgated thereunder with retwo spect to each section of fur products composed of more sections containing different animal furs. 6. Setting forth information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Art and the Rules and R.egulations thereuTIcler in a Dlflnner which is not C1ea1\ JegibJe distinct and conspicuous.

7. Failing to set fort.h on invoices the item number or mark assigned t.o fur products.

1 t is further o)'dered That re,spondent Leo ESS81'man, an individual trading under his own name. as Essel'ma,n Co. , or under any other t.trade name, and respondent's representatives, agents and employees WESTI GHOj;SE ELECTRIC CORP. 625 GI\) Oomplaint djrectly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from furnishing a false guaranty that any fur product is not misbranded, falsely invoiced or falsely advertised when the respondent has reason to believe that such fur product may be introduced, sold, transported, or distributed in commerce. within sixty I t is tw.ther ordered That respondent herein shah, (60) days after service upon him of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he has complied with this order.