Lepshire Mfg. Co

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

In Tar Matrer or LEPSHIRE MFG. CO., ET AT.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING AND TITE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket.C-1711. Complaint, Mar. 19, 1970—Deeision, Mar. 19, 1870 Consent order requiring a Chicago, Il., manufacturer of ladies’ coats and fur trimmed coats to cease misbranding its wool prodnets and failing to maintain required records on its textile fiber products. Complaint G7 WLC.

Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Textile 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 Lepshire Mfg. Co., a corporation, and Harold Lepp, Fay Dudovitz and Sol M. Dudovitz, individually and as officers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisons of 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 in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

Paracrarit 1. Respondent Lepshire Mfg. Co. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Illinois with its office and principal place of business located at 837 South Franklin, Chicago, Illinois. Individual respondents Harold Lepp, Fay Dudovitz and Sol M. Dudovitz are officers of said corporation. They formulate, direct and control the policies, acts ‘and practices of said corporation and their address is the same as that of the corporate respondent. Respondents are manufacturers of ladies’ coats and fur trimmed coats.

Par. 2, Respondents, now and for some time last past, have introduced into commerce, manufactured for introduction into commerce, sold, transported, distributed, delivered for shipment, shipped, and offered for sale, in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, wool products as “wool product” is defined therein.

Par. 3. 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 ladies’ coats, stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified as containing 100 percent Wool, whereas in truth and in fact, such coats contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than represented.

LEPSHIRE MFG. CO., ET AL. 291 295 Complaint’ Pan. 4. 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 wool products with labels on or affixed thereto which failed to disclose the percentage of total fiber weight of the wood products, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding five per centum of said total fiber weight, of (1) wool; (2) reprocessed wool; (3) reused wool; (4) each fiber other than wool when said percentage by weight of such fiber was five per centum or more; and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers. .

Par. 5. 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 methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Par. 6. Respondents are now and for some time last past have been engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction, manufacture for introduction, sale, advertising, and offering for sale, 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, as the terms “commerce” and “textile fiber product” are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. Par. 7. Respondents have failed to maintain and preserve proper records showing the fiber content of textile fiber products manufactured by them, in violation of Section 6(a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Rule 39 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Par. 8. The acts and practices of respondents as set forth above in Paragraph Seven were, and are, in violation of the Textile 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.

Order TT E.T.C.

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 of Textiles and Furs proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondents with violations of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 19389 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 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 §2.34(b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent Lepshire Mfg. Co. is a corporation organized, exist- ‘ing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Illinois with its office and principal place of business located at 337 S. Franklin, Chicago, Tlinois.

Respondents Harold Lepp, Fay Dudovitz and Sol M. Dudovitz are officers of said corporation. They formulate, direct and control the policies, acts and practices of said corporation and their address is the same as that of the corporate respondent. 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 as ordered, That respondents Lepshire Mfg. Co., a corporation, and its officers, and Harold Lepp, Fay Dudovitz and Sol M. Dudo- 295 Order vitz, individually and as officers of said corporation, 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, delivery for shipment or shipment, in commerce, of wool products as “commerce” and “wool product” are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding wool 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.

It is further ordered, That respondents Lepshire Mfg. Co., a corporation, and its officers, and Harold Lepp, Fay Dudovitz and Sol M. Dudovitz, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, delivery for introduction, manufacture 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 Tnited States of any textile fiber product; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation or causing to be transported, of any textile 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 failing to maintain and preserve proper records of fiber content of textile fiber products manufactured by respondents, as required by Section 6(a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Rule 39 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

ft is further ordered, That respondents notify the Commission at least 80 days prior to any proposed change in the corporate respondent such as dissolution, assignment or sale resulting in the emergence of a successor corporation, the creation or dissolution of subsid- Order TT F.T.C.

iaries or any other change in the corporation which may affect compliance obligations arising out of this order. It is further ordered, That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions.

lt is 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.