Leesin International, Inc

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

IN THE :vATTER OF LEESIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-2765. Complaint, Dec. 1975-Decision, Dec. , 1975 Consent order requiring a Croton On-Hudson, importer and distributor of fabrics, among other things to cease misrepresenting the wool content of their wool blend fabrics and further, that respondents notify their customers that the fabrics they have purchased were misbranded. Appearances For the Commission: Jerr R. McDonald. For the respondents: Pro "e.

COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that Leesin International, Inc., a corporation and Leon Sinder, individually and as an officer of said corporation hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the rules and regulations promulgated under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, 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 Leesin International, Inc. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Y m'k, with its office and principal place of business located at Quaker Bridge Road E., Croton-On-Hudson, N. Respondent Leon Sinder is an officer of Leesin International, Inc. He Complaint 86 F.

formulates, directs, and controls the acts and practices of the corporate respondent, including the acts and practices hereinafter set forth. His business address is the same as that of the corporate respondent. Respondents are engaged in the importation and sale of fabrics including but not limited to wool products. PAR. 2. Respondents, now and for some time past, have imported for introduction into commerce, introduced into commerce, transported distributed, delivered for shipment, shipped, offered for sale, and sold in commerce as "commerce" is defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, wool products as "wool product" is defined therein. PAR. 8. Certain of said wool products were misbranded by the respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4(a)(l) 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 certain wool fabrics stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwse identified by respondents as 40 percent wool, 60 percent polyester; whereas, in truth and in fact, said products contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than represented.

PAR. 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, namely wool fabrics, with labels on or affxed thereto which failed to disclose the percentage of the total fiber weight of the said wool products, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5 per centum of said total fiber weight, of (I) wool, (2) reprocessed wool, (3) reused wool, (4) each fiber other than wool, when said percentage by weight of such fiber was 5 per centum or more, and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers.

PAR. 5. The acts and practices of 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, under the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended.

PAR. 6. Respondents are now and for some time past have been engaged in the importation, offering for sale, sale, and distribution of certain products, namely fabrics. In the course and conduct of their LEESIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL. 1391 1389 Decision and Order business as aforesaid, respondents now cause and for some time last past, have caused their said products, when sold, to be shipped from their place of business in the State of New York to purchasers located in various other States of the United States, and maintain and at an times mentioned herein have maintained, a substantial course of trade in said products in or affecting commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended. PAR. 7. Respondents in the course and conduct of their business have made statements on invoices to their customers misrepresenting the fiber content of certain of their products. Among such misrepresentations, but not limited thereto, were statements setting forth the fiber content thereof as 40 percent wool 60 percent polyester; whereas, in truth and in fact, said products contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than represented.

PAR. 8. The acts and practices set out in Paragraph Seven have the tendency and capacity to mislead and deceive the purchasers of said products as to the true content thereof.

PAR. 9. The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondents as herein alleged in Paragraph Seven were, and are, alj to the prejudice and injury of the public, and constituted, and now constitute, unfair and deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended. 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 New York Regional Offce 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, as amended, and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and;

The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of alj 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 rules; and The Commission having thereafter considered the matter and having determined that it had reason to believe that the respondents have Dccision and Order 86 F.

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 sixty (60) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in Section 2.34 of its rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the folowing jurisdictional findings and enters the folowing order:

1. Respondent Leesin International, Inc., is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its office and principal place of business located at Quaker Bridge Road E., Croton-On-Hudson, N. Respondent Leon Sinder is an officer of said corporation. He formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies of said corporation and his 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 Leesin International, Inc., a corporation, its successors and assigns, and its officers, and Leon Sinder, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents, and employees, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division, or any other device, in connection with the introduction, or importing 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 such products by:

1. Falsely and deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, or otherwse identifying such products.

2. Failing to securely affx to or place on, each such product a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identifcation 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 Leesin International, Inc., a corporation, its successors and assigns, and its officers, and Leon Sinder, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the importing, advertising, offering for sale, sale or distribution of fabrics in or affecting commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal MR. MARTINEZ OF YIIAYII, IKC., ET AL. 1393 1393 Decision and Order Trade Commission Act, as amended, do forthwith cease and desist from misrepresenting the amount or character of constituent fibers con­ tained in such products on invoices or shipping memoranda applicable thereto, or in any other manner.

It is furthe,. ordered That respondents notify, by registered mail each of their customers that purchased the wool products which gave rise to this complaint of the fact that such products were misbranded. It is further ordered That the individual respondent named herein promptly notify the Commission of the discontinuance of his present business or employment and his affiliation with a new business or employment. Such notice shall include respondent' s current business address and a statement as to the nature of the business or employment in which he is engaged, as well as a description of his duties and responsibilities.

It is further ordered That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions. It is further ordered That respondents notify the Commission at least thirty (30) 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 subsidiaries or any other change in the corporation which may affect compliance obligations arising out of the order. It is further ordered That respondents 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 the order to cease and desist contained herein.