Wassermak & Lavine, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF WASSERMAK & LAVINE , INC., ET AL.

CO:\SE:\T ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE Coyimission A:\D THE Fer PRODUCTS LABELI:\G ACTS Docket C-1175. Complaint, Feb. 20, 1.967-Decis ion, Feb. '20 , 1967 Consent order requiring a Xe\v York City manufacturing furrier to cease misbranding, falsely invoicing, and deceptively advertising its fur products.

COMPLAI:\T 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 reason to believe that \;Y'asserman & Lavine, Inc., a corporation, and David 'Nasserman and Paul Lavine, individually and as of-c€l's of said corporation, 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 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 vVassern1an & Lavine, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of K ew York. Respondents David \Vasserman and Paul Lavine are offcers of the corporate respondent. They formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of the saiel corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are manufacturers of fur products with their offce and principal place of business located at :,45 Seventh A venue, Kew York, Xe\v York.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, J 952, 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 manufactured for sale, 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 , W ASSERMA"I & LA VINE, II'C. , ET AL. 265 264 Complaint 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 falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely or deceptively identified 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 4 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto were fur products which were labeled as "Sable " when fur contained in such products was, in fact American Sable. PAR. 4. 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 misbrnnded fur products, but not limited thereto were fur products with labels which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in any such fur product.

2. To show the name, or other indentilication issued and registered by the Commission, of one or more of the persons \vho manufactured such fur products for introduction into commerce introduced it into commerce, sold it in commerce, advertised or offered it for sale, in commerce, or transported or distributed it commerce.

PAR. 5. 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 thereundcr in the following respects: (a) The term "natural" was not used on labels to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artilicially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in handwriting on labels, in violation of Rule 29 (b) of said Rules and Regulations. (c) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth in the required sequence, in violation of Rule 30 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and decep- Complaint 71 F.

tively invoiced by the 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:

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

2. To show the country of origin of imported furs used in fur products.

PAR. 7. 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 Broadtail" thereby implying that the furs contained therein were entitled to the designation "Broadtail Larnb " \vhen in truth and in fact, the furs contained therein were not entitled to such designation.

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) The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth on invoices in the TI13nnel' l' equired by law, in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Hegulatiol1s. (b) The term 'inatural" was not used on invokes to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artiicially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 9. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that certain advertisements intended to aid, promote and assist directly or indirectly, in the sale and ofiering for sale of such fur products ' were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 (a) of said Act.

Among and included in the aforesaid adve,.tisements but not limited thereto, \were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the Women s Wear Daily, a newsp"per published in the city of New York, State of New York and having WASSER:YIAN & LAVINE, INC. , ET AL. 267 2fj4 Decision and Order a wide circulation in New York and in other States of the United States.

Among such false and decept.ive advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements which failed to show that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact. PAR. 10. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act ami the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in con:lmerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION AND ORDER The Federal Tj'ade 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 proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, \vould charge respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to issue herein, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as set forth in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission s rules; and The Commission, having considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Wasserman & Lavine, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 345 Seventh Avenue, Kew York, New York. Respondents David \Vasserman and Paul Lavine are officers of said corporation and their address is the Sa1Yle as that of said corporation.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the sub- 26R FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Decision and Order 71 F. ject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered That respondents Wasserman & Lavine, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and David Wasserman and Paul Lavine, individually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents ' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, or man facturc for introduction, into commerce, or the sale, adverUsing or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or 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 product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: A. Misbranding any fur product by:

1. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying such fur product as to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product.

2. Failing to affx a label to such fur product 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. 3. Failing to set forth the term " natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on a label under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

4. Setting forth information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting on a label affxed to such fur product.

5. Failing to set forth information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder on a label in the sequence required by Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing any fur product by: ROSIN-STARR, INC. , ET AL. 269 264 Syllabus 1. Failing to furnish an invoice, as the term invoice " is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Setting forth on an invoice pertaining to such fur product 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. B. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtailprocessed Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words "Dyed Lamb.

4. Failing to set forth the term " natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on an invoice under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed, or otherwise artificially colored. C. Falsely or deceptively advertising any fur product through the use of any c:advertisement, representation, public announcement or notice which is intended to aid, promote 0)- assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale, or offering for sale of any fur product, and which fails to set forth in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

It is JUTther 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.