Levy-Abrams Co.

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

IN THE :'IA TTER LEVY-ABRAMS CO. ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket C-1045. Complaint, Ma1' ch 1966-Decision, Ma?' ch, 1966 Consent order requiring a San Francisco, Calif. , partnership to cease misbranding their wool coats and other wool and textile fiber products. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Textile Complaint 69 F. T.

Fiber Products Identification Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Levy-Abrams Co. , a partnership, and Julian Levy and Howard Abrams, individually and as copartners trading as Levy-Abrams Co., Calmoor Coats and Nichole of California, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of the said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Levy-Abrams Co. , is a partnership comprised of Julian Levy and Howard Abrams who formulate direct and control the acts and practices of the said partnership, including the acts and practices hereinafter set forth. The offce and principal place of business of respondent is located at 154 Sutter Street, San Francisco, California. Respondents Julian Levy and Howard Abrams are individuals and copartners trading and doing business as Levy-Abrams Co. Calmoor Coats and ~ichole of California, and their address is the same as that of said partnership.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, respondents have 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. 3. Certain of said wool products were misbranded 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 coats stamped, tagged or labeled as containing 100% Mohair, whereas in truth and in fact, said coats contained substantially less Mohair than represented and in addition contained a substantial amount of other woolen fibers. PAR. 4. Certain of said wool products were further misbranded 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 LEVY-ABRAMS CO. ET AL. 215 213 Complaint 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 affxed 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 when said percentage by weight of such fiber was 5 per centum or more; and (3) the aggregate of a11 other fibers. PAR. 5. Certain of said wool products were misbranded in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that the term "mohair" was used in lieu of the word "wool" in setting forth the required fiber content information on labels affxed to wool products when certain of the fibers so described were not entitled to such designation, in violation of Hule 19 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. PAR. G. 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 Reg-ulations 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.

PAR. 7. Subsequent to the effective date of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act on March 3, 19GO, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction, manufacture for introduction, sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, and in the importation into the United States, of textile fiber products; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, textile fiber products, which have been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, after shipment in commerce, textile fiber products, either in their original state or contained in other textile fiber products; as the terms commerce" and "textile fiber product" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

PAR. 8. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified as required under the provisions of Section Decision and Order 69 F.

4 (b) of the Textie Fiber Products Identification Act, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were textile fiber products which were not labeled to show in words and figures plainly legible; (1) the true generic names of the constituent fibers present in the textile fiber products; (2) the percentage of each such fibers; and (3) the terms other fiber" or "other fibers" to designate any fiber or group of fibers present in the amount of 5 per centum or less. PAR. 9. The acts and practices of respondents as set forth in Paragraph Eight above were, and are, in violation of the Textie Fiber Products Identification Act 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.

DECISION 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 . Textiles and Furs 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 Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act; 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 admission by the respondents 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 have violated the said Acts, 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 Levy-Abrams Co. is a partnership comprised of LEVY-ABRAMS CO. ET AL. 217 213 Order respondent Julian Levy and respondent Howard Abrams, who are individuals and copartners trading and doing business as Levy- Abrams Co., Calmoor Coats and Kichole of California. The offce and principal place of business of said respondents is located at 154 Sutter Street, San Francisco, California. 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 It is ordel'ed That respondents Levy-Abrams Co. , a partnership, and Julian Levy and Howard Abrams, individually and as copartners trading as Levy-Abrams Co., Calmoor Coats and Nichole of California or any other name and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from introducing into commerce, or offering for sale, selling, transporting, distributing or delivering for shipment in commerce, wool coats or other wool products, as "commerce" and "wool product" are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939:

1. Which are falsely or deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified as to the character or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. 2. Unless such products have securely affxed thereto or placed thereon a stamp, tag, label or other means of identification correctly 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. 3. To which are affxed required fiber content labels using the term "mohair" in lieu of the word "wool" in setting forth the required information, unless the fibers described as mohair are entitled to such designation and are present in at least the amount stated.

It is further ordered That respondents Levy-Abrams Co., a partnership, and Julian Levy and Howard Abrams, individually and as copartners trading as Levy-Abrams Co., Calmoor Coats and Nichole of California or any other name and respondents representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, delivery for introduction, sale, advertising, or offering for sale, in commerce, or the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, or the importation into the United States, of any tex- Complaint 69 F.

tile fiber product; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported, of any textie fiber product which has been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported, after shipment in commerce, of any textile fiber product, whether in its original state or contained in other textile fiber products, as the terms "commerce" and "textile fiber product" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding such textile fiber products by failing to affx labels thereto showing in a clear, legible and conspicuous manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

It is further ordered That the respondents herein shah, 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.