Browner & Lefkowitz, Incorporated

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

In THE Marrer or BROWNER & LEFKOWITZ, INCORPORATED ET AL.

COMPLAINT, DECISION, FINDINGS, AND ORDER IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 5 OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED SEPT. 26, 1914, AND OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED OCT. 14, 1940 Docket 6054. Complaint, Oct. 17, 1952—Decision, Mar. 5, 1953 - Where a corporation and its two officers, engaged in the manufacture and interstate sale and distribution of wool products as defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act— (a) Misbranded certain ladies’ coats in that they were not stamped, tagged or labeled as required by said Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder ;

Misbranded certain of said coats in that they were labeled or tagged as containing “Wool Interlining”, notwithstanding the fact that said interlinings were not wool as defined by said Act but were composed of reused wool together with substantial quantities of miscellaneous fibers; and (b ~ (c) Further misbranded such coats in that the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained in the interlinings thereof were not separately set forth on the stamps, tags, and labels as required by the said Act and Rule 24 of said Rules and Regulations:

Held, That such acts and practices, under the circumstances set forth, were in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted unfair acts and practices in commerce.

Before Mr. Everett F. Haycraft, hearing examiner. Mr. George E. Steinmetz for the Commission. Mr. Bernard L. Baskin, of New York City, for respondents. Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act 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 Browner & Lefkowitz, Incorporated, a corporation, and Benjamin Browner and Herman Lefkowitz, individually and as officers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts, 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:

BROWNER & LEFKOWITZ, INC. ET AL. 1133 1132 Complaint Paracrary 1. Respondent Browner & Lefkowitz, Incorporated, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, and respondents Benjamin Browner and Herman Lefkowitz are the president and the secretary-treasurer, respectively, of the said respondent corporation. Respondents Benjamin Browner and Herman Lefkowitz direct and control the policies, acts and practices of the corporate respondent, and the offices and principal place of business of all respondents are located at 252 West 87th Street, New York, New York.

Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the said Wool Products Labeling Act and more especially since 1950, respondents have manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced into commerce, sold, transported, distributed, delivered for shipment and offered for sale in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act, wool products, as “wool products” are defined therein. Par. 3. Certain of said wool products were misbranded in that they were not stamped, tagged, or labeled as reqtiired under the provisions of Section 4 (a) (2) of the-Wool Products Labeling Act of 1989, and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under such Act. .

Par. 4. Certain of said wool products were misbranded within the intent and meaning of said Wool Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or tagged with respect to the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. Among the misbanded wool products aforementioned were ladies’ coats labeled or tagged by the respondent corporation as containing “Wool Interlining,” when in truth and in fact the said interlinings were not wool as defined by the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, but contained reused wool together with substantial quantities of miscellaneous fibers other than wool.

Other wool products of the respondent corporation, namely, ladies’ coats, were misbranded in that the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained in the interlinings thereof were not separately set forth on the stamps, tag or label as required by the said Act and Rule 24 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. Par. 5. The acts and practices of the respondents as herein alleged constitute misbranding of wool products and are in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and all of the aforesaid acts and practices as herein alleged are to the prejudice and injury of the public and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. 2601883—55———7T5 1134 FEDERAL .TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Decision 49 FLT. C.

DECISION OF THE Commission Pursuant to Rule XXII of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, and as set forth in the Commission’s “Decision of the Commission and Order to File Report of Compliance,” dated March 5, 1953, the initial decision in the instant matter of hearing examiner Everett F. Haycraft, as set out as follows, became on that date the decision of the Commission.

INITIAL DECISION BY EVERETT F. HAYCRAFT, HEARING EXAMINER Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission on October 17, 1952, issued and subsequently served its complaint in this proceeding upon the respondents named in the caption hereof, charging them with the use of unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce in violation of the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, in connection with the sale of women’s wearing apparel. After the filing of respondents’ answer in this proceeding a hearing was held on December 17, 1952, before the above-named hearing examiner of the Commission, theretofore duly designated by it, at which a stipulation was entered into by and between Bernard L. Baskin, attorney for respondents, and George E. Steinmetz, attorney in support of the complaint, subject to the approval of the hearing examiner, whereby it was stipulated and agreed that a statement of facts agreed to on the record may be made a part of the record herein and may be taken as the facts in this proceeding and in lieu of evidence in support of the charges stated in the complaint or in opposition thereto; that the said hearing examiner may proceed upon said statement of facts to make his initial decision stating his findings as to the facts, including inferences which he may draw from the said stipulation of facts and his conclusion based thereon and enter his order disposing of the proceeding as to said respondents without the filing of proposed findings and conclusions or the presentation of oral argument. Said stipulation as to the facts expressly provides that upon appeal to or review by the Commission, said stipulation may be set aside by the Commission and this matter remanded for further proceedings under the complaint.

Thereafter, this proceeding regularly came on for final consideration by said hearing examiner upon the complaint, answer, and stipulation, said stipulation having been approved by the hearing examiner who, after duly considering the record herein, finds that-this proceeding is in the interest of the public and makes the following findings as to the facts, conclusion drawn therefrom, and order: BROWNER & LEFKOWITZ, INC. ET AL. 1135 1182 Conclusion FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS Paracrapy 1. Respondent Browner & Lefkowitz, Incorporated, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, and respondents Benjamin Browner and Herman Lefkowitz are the president and the secretary-treasurer, respectively, of the said respondent corporation. Respondents Benjamin Browner and Herman Lefkowitz direct and control the policies, acts and practices of the corporate respondents, and the offices and principal place of business of all respondents are located at 252 West 37th Street, New York, New York, Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the said Wool Products Labeling Act and more especially since 1950, respondents have manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced into commerce, sold, transported, distributed, delivered for shipment and offered for sale in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act, wool products, as “wool products” are defined therein. Par. 8. Certain of said wool products were misbranded in that they were not stamped, tagged, or labeled 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 such Act.

Par. 4. Certain of said wool products were misbranded within the intent and meaning of said Wool Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or tagged with respect to the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. Among the misbranded wool products aforementioned were ladies’ coats labeled or tagged by the respondent corporation as containing “Wool Interlining,” when in truth and in fact the said interlinings were not wool as defined by the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, but contained reused wool together with substantial quantities of miscellaneous fibers other than wool.

Other wool products of the respondent corporation, namely, ladies’ coats, were misbranded in that the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained in the interlinings thereof were not separately set forth on the stamps, tag or label as required by the said Act and Rule 24 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. CONCLUSION The acts and practices of respondents as found in Paragraphs Three and Four hereof are in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1989 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and are to the prejudice and injury of the public and constitute unfair and Order 49 Ff T.C.

deceptive acts and practices in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

ORDER It is ordered, That the respondent, Browner & Lefkowitz, Incorporated, a corporation, and its officers, and respondents, Benj amin Browner and Herman Lefkowitz, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents’ respective 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 or distribution in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, of ladies’ coats or other “wool products” as such products are defined in and subject to the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, which products contain, purport to contain or in any way are represented as containing “wool,” “reprocessed wool” or “reused wool,” as those terms are defined in said Act, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding such products by:

1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling or otherwise identifying such products as to the character or amount of the constituent fibers included 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 ;

(a) The percentage of the total fiber weight of such wool product, 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 where said percentage by weight of such fiber is five percentum or more, and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers;

(b) The maximum percentage of the total weight of such wool product of any nonfibrous loading, filling, or adulterating matter; (c) The name or the registered identification number of the manufacturer of such wool product or of one or more persons engaged in introducing such wool product into commerce, or in the offering for sale, sale, transportation, distribution or delivery for shipment thereof in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

8. Failing to separately set forth on the required stamp, tag, label or other means of identification the character and amount of the constituent fibers appearing in the interlinings of such wool products, BROWNER & LEFKOWITZ, INC. ET AL. 1137 1132 ; Order as provided in Rule 24 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the said Act.

Provided: That the foregoing provisions concerning misbranding shall not be construed to prohibit acts permitted by paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 3 of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and Provided further, That nothing contained in this order shall be construed as limiting any applicable provisions of said Act of the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE It is 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 the order to cease and desist [as required by said declaratory decision and order of March 5, 1953]. 1138 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION: DECISIONS Syllabus 49 F. T. C.