Hyman Cohn

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

In rue Matrer or HYMAN COHN ET AL. TRADING AS SUPERIOR GARMENT COMPANY CONSENT ORDER, ETC.. IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FED- ERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-S54. Complaint, Nov. 4, 1964—Decision, Nov. 4, 1964 Consent order requiring New York City manufacturers of fur and wool products to cease misbranding their wool and fur products, and deceptively invoicing and advertising their fur products.

Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that Superior Garment Company, a partnership, and Hyman Cohn, Lillian Cohn, and Albert Cohn, individually and as copartners trading as Superior SUPERIOR GARMENT CO. 1089 1088: Complaint Garment Company, 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 the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, 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:

Paracrary 1. Respondent Superior Garment Company is a partnership comprised of Hyman Cohn, Lillian Cohn and Albert Cohn who formulate, direct, and control the acts and practices of the said partnership, including the acts and practices hereinafter set forth. The office and principal place of business of respondent is located at 512 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York.

Respondents Hyman Cohn, Lillian Cohn and Albert Cohn are individuals and copartners trading and doing business as Superior Garment Company, and their address is the same as that of said partnership.

Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective 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 manufacture 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 have sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of furs which have been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms “commerce,” “fur” and “fur product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Par. 8. 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 prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Among such mishranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products with labels which failed to show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product.

Par. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in viclation 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) The term “Persian Lamb” was not set, manner required by law, in violation of Rule 8 of said Rules and forth on Jabels in the Regulations.

(b) The term “Natural” was not used on labels to deserihe fur Complaint 66 F.T.C.

products which were not pointed, bleached, dved, tip-dyed. or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(g) of said Rules and Regulations. ;

(c) Required item numbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by respondents in that 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 to disclose any of the information required by said Act. 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 Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) The term “Natural” was not used on invoices to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(g) of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that certain advertisements intended to aid, promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of such fur products were not in accordance with the provisions of said Rules and Regulations. Among and included in the aforesaid advertisements but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents in the form of brochures. Par. 8. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that the said fur products were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that the term “Natural” was not used to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tin-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(g) of the said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 9. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair SUPERIOR GARMENT CO. 1091 1068 Decision and Order and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. Par. 10. Subsequent to the effective date of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, respondents have manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced into commerce, sold, transported, distributed, delivered for shipment and offered for sale in commerce as “commerce” is defined in said Act, wool products as “wool product” is defined therein.

Par. 11. Certain of said wool products were misbranded by the respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4(a) (1) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified with respect to the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto, were woolen coats stamped, tagged and labeled, with conflicting information with regard to the fiber content of said products. Par. 12. Certain of said wool products were further misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified as required under the provisions of Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto, were certain coats with labels on or affixed thereto which failed to disclose the percentage of the total fiber weight of the wool product, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5 per centum of said total fiber weight, of (1) woolen fibers: (2) each fiber other than wool present in the wool product in the amount of 5% or more by weight; (3) the aggregate of all other fibers.

Par. 13. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth above were, and are in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, and now constitute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. DeEcIsIoN AND ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondents named in the caption hereof, and the respondents having been furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Textiles and Furs Decision and Order 66 FVT.C, proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a. consent order, an admission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an acmission by the respondent that the law has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission’s rules; and The Commission, having reason to believe that the respondents hare violated the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and having determined that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, hereby issues its complaint, accepts said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings and enters the following order: 1, Respondent Superior Garment Company is a partnership comprised of Hyman Cohn, Lillian Cohn and Albert Cohn with its office and principal place of business located at 512 Seventh Avenue, in the city of New York, State of New York.

Respondents Hyman Cohn, Lillian Cohn and Albert Cohn are copartners trading and doing business as Superior Garment Company, and their address is the same as that of said partnership. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER lt is ordered, That respondents Superior Garment Company, a partnership, and Hyman Cohn, Lillian Cohn, and Albert Cohn, individually and as copartners trading as Superior Garment Company or under any other trade name or names and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce, and in the manufacture for introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in comerce, of any fur product; or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale, 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 SUPERIOR GARMENT CO. 1093 ‘L088 Decision and Order product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. Misbranding fur products by:

1. Failing to affix 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. 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.”

3. Failing to set forth the term “Natural”:as part of the information required to be disclosed on labels under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

4. Failing to set forth on labels 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. Failing to set forth the term “Natural” as part of the information required to be disclosed on invoices under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

3. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to fur products.

C. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement or notice which is intended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale, or offering for sale of any fur product, and which fails to set forth the term “Natural” as part of the information required to be disclosed in advertisements under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored. It is further ordered, That respondents Superior Garment Company, a parnership, and Hyman Cohn, Lillian Cohn and Albert Cohn, Complaint 66 F.T.C.

individually and as copartners trading as Superior Garment Company, and respondents’ 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 offering for sale, sale, transportation, distribution or delivery for shipment in commerce, of wool coats or other wool products, as “commerce” and “svool product” are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from:

Misbranding such products by :

1. Falsely and deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling or otherwise identifying such products as to the character or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. 2. Failing to securely affix to, or place on, each such product a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification showing in a clear and conspicuous manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act. of 1939, Lt ts further ordered, That the respondents herein shall, within 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 this order.