Lippin-Golden, Inc

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

IN THE MATTER OF LIPPI GOLDEN, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLA TION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELI"G ACTS Docket C-1563. Complaint, July 1969-Decision, July 15, 1969 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturing furrier to cease misbranding and falsely invoicing and guaranteeing its fur products. Complaint 76 F.

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 reason to believe that Lippin-Golden, Inc., a corporation and Elliot Lippin and Murray Golden, individually and as offcers 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 Lippin-Golden, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondents Ellot Lippin and Murray Golden are offcers of the corporate respondent. They formulate, direct and control the policies, acts and practices of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are manufacturers of fur products with their offce and principal place of business located at 315 Seventh Avenue, New York ew York.

PAR. 2. Respondents are now and for some time last past have been 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, as the terms "commerce fur" and Hfuy 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 of the country of origin of furs contained in such fur products, in violation of Section 4 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto were fur products labeled to show the country of origin of furs LIPPJN-GOLDEN, INC. , ET AL.

Complaint used in such fur products as the United States when the country of origin of each such fur was, in fact, Denmark or Sweden. 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 misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto were fur products with labels which failed to show the country of origin of the imported furs contained in the fur products. PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively 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 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 with respect to the name of the country of origin of imported furs used in 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 the United States when the country of origin of each such fur was, in fact, Denmark or Sweden.

PAR. 7. Respondents furnished false guaranties that certain of their fur products were not misbranded, falsely invoiced or falsely advertised when respondents in furnishing such guaranties had reason to believe that fur products so falsely guarantied would be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in commerce, in violation of Section 10 (b) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 8. 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 methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Decision and Order 76 F.

DECISION Ac;D 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 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 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 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 respondents that the law has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and other provisions as required by the Commission s Rules; and The Commission having thereafter considered the matter and having determined that it had reason to believe that the respondents have violated the said Acts, and that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, and having thereupon accepted the executed consent agreement and placed such agreement on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in 34 (b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent Lippin-Golden, Inc., is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Kew York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 315 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York. Respondents Elliot Lippin and Murray Golden are offcers of said corporation and their address is the same as that of said corporation.

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 ordered That respondents Lippin-Golden, Inc. , a corporation, and its offcers, and Elliot Lippin and Murray Golden, individually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents' rep- LIPPIN-GOLDEN , INC. , ET AL.

Decision and Order resentatives, 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 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 /lful' 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 falsely and deceptively identifying such fur product as to the country of origin of furs contained in such 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. B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing any fur product by: 1. Failing to furnish an invoice, as the term "invoice is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, showing in words and figures plainly all the information required to be disclosed hy each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. 1\1isrepresenting in any manner, on an invoice directly or by implication, the country of origin of fur contained in such fur product.

It is further ordered That respondents Lippin-Golden, Inc. , a corporation, and its offcers and Elliot Lippin and Murray Golden individually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents representatives, agents and employees, directly 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 respondents have reason to believe that such fur product may be introduced, sold transported, or distributed in commerce. It is further ordered That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions.

Complaint 76 F.

It is furthe',' 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.