Morris Lessner

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

IN THE MATTER OF MORRIS LESSNER CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 0-1050. Complaint, March 18, 1966-Decision, March 18, 1966 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturing furrier to cease violating The Fur Products Labeling Act by m:sbranding and falsely invoicing his fur products.

COMPLAINT.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and by virtue of the au- MORRIS LESSNER 471 470 Complaint thority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that Morris Lessner, an individual trading as Morris Lessner, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has 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 Morris Lessner is an individual trading as Morris Lessner.

Respondent is a manufacturer of fur products with his offce and principal place of business located at 150 West 28th Street New 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 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 has been and is now manufacturing for sale, selling, advertising, offering for sale transporting and distributing fur products which had been made in whole or in part of furs which had 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 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 misbranded 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 violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder inasmuch as 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 the respondent 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 Complaint 69 F. T.

not limited thereto, were fur products covered by invoices which failed:

1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product.

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

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products which were invoiced as Sable" when, in fact, the fur contained in such products was American Sable" or "American Marten, PAR. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced with respect to the name of the country of origin of imported furs used in such fur products, in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products invoiced to show the name of the country of origin of furs contained in such fur products as Russia" when the country of origin was, in fact, the "United States " or "Canada.

PAR. 8. 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) Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth on invoices in abbreviated form in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations. (b) The term "blended" was used on invoices as part of the information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe the pointing, bleached, dyeing, tip-dyeing or otherwise artificial coloring of furs, in violation of Rule 19 (f) of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. MORRIS LESSNER 473 470 Order DECISION AND ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondent named in the caption hereof, and the respondent having been furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Textiles and Furs proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondent with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act; and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondent of al1 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 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 respondent has violated the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and having determined that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, hereby issues its complaint, accepts said agreement, makes the following j urisdictional findings and enters the following order: 1. Respondent Morris Lessner is an individual trading as Morris Lessner with his offce and principal place of business located at 150 West 28th Street, New York, 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 o1'de1'ed That respondent Morris Lessner, an individual trading as Morris Lessner or under any other trade 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, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or transportation and distribution in commerce, of any fur product; or in connection with the manufacture for sale, 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 the terms "commerce, fur" and "fur Order 69 F.

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. Failing to set forth on labels the item number or mark assigned to each such fur product.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices, as the term "invoice" is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act showing in words and figures plainly legible al1 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 on invoices pertaining to fur products any false or deceptive information with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in such fur product. 3. Misrepresenting in any manner, on invoices directly or by implication, the country or origin of the fur contained in fur products.

4. Setting forth information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

5. Setting forth the term "blended" or any term of like import as part of the information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe the pointing, bleaching, dyeing, tip-dyeing or otherwise artificial coloring of furs contained in fur products.

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

It is fU1'thel' ordered That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (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. M. LEVINSON & SONS, INC., ET AL. 475 Complaint