David Lippel

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

Ix THE .TlATTEH OF DAVID LIPPEL ET AL. 'rita.DING AS DORCHESTER WOOLEN)/ COMPANY COKSEXT ORDER ETC. , IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VTOL.cTIOX OF Tile I'EDER. \L TIL\DF. COJUIISSIOK AND TUE WOOL rRODVCTS LABELI:KG ACTS Docket 8184. Complaint, Nov. 1960-Decision, Apr. , 1961 Consent order requiring New York City importers to cease violating the Wool Products Labeling Act by labeling as "wool reprocessed" and as "30% reprocessed wool, 70% rayon (Fiocco) ", woolen fabrics from Italy which contained substantially less woolen fibers than thus represented, and by failng in other resvects to comply with labeling requirements. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of t.he Federal Trade Commission Act and the 'W 001 Products Labeling Act of 1030 and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federa,l Trade Commission having reason to believe t.hat David Lippcl, David Gleicher and Arthur Herman, individually and as co-partners trading as Dorchester 1Voolen Company, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the VV 001 Products Labeling Act, and it appearing to the Commission that. a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public inte.rest, hereby issues its complaint: stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondents David Lippe!, David Gleicher and Arthur IIerman arc co-partners, trading as Dorchester ",Voolen Company. Their offce and principal place of business is located at 218 west 37th Street, :Yew York, New York. 681 237--63--2 642 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DEOISIONS Decision 58 F.

PA)" 2. Subsequent to thc effective date of the ,Vaal Products Labeling Act of 1939, and more especially since :\breh 1959 , rcspondents have imported from Italy and introduced into commerce sold, transported, distributed, delivered for shipment, and offered for sale. in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in said Act, wool products, as ' wool products" are defined therein. PAR. 3. Certain of said \Vool products "ere misbranded \fhen imported by respondents and afterwards misbranded by respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a) (1) of the ,V 001 Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated 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 such misbranded woolen products were woolen fabrics tagged or labeled as "wool reprocessed" and as "30% reprocessed wool, 70% rayon (Fiocco)" whereas, in truth and in fact, said woolen fabrics contained substantially less woolen fibers than represented, in each instance.

PAR. 4. Certain of said wool products were further 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 and in the manner and form as prescribed by. the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

PAR. 5. The respondents, in the course and conduct of their business, as aforesaid, were and are in substantial competition in commerce, with corporations, firms and individuals likewise engaged in the sale of wool products of the same general nature as those sold by respondents.

PAR. 6. 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 and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Oharles W. O'Oonnell, Esq. and Miahal P. Hughes, Esq. for the Commission.

SahaffeT &1 Goldstem by Maxwell H. Goldstein, Esq. of New York, N. , for respondents.

INITIAL DECISION BY ROBERT L. PIPER, HEARING EXAINER The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents on November 23 , 1960, charging them DORCHES1' ER WOOLEN CQ:IANY 643 Decision with having violated the Wool Products Labeling Act, the rules and regulations issued thereunder, and the Federal Trade Commission Act, by misbranding and falsely representing their wool products. Respondents appeared by counsel and entered into an agreement, dated February 16, 1961, containing a consent order to cease and desist, disposing of all the issues in this proceeding without further hearings, which agreement has been duly approved by the Bureau of Litigation. Said agreement has been submitted to the undersigned, heretofore duly designated to act as hearing examiner herein, for his consideration in accordance with 25 of the Rules of Practice of the Commission.

Respondents, pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, have admitted all of the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and agreed that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been made duly in accordance with such allegations. Said agreement further provides that respondents waive all further procedural steps before the hearing examiner or the Commission, including the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law and the right to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with such agreement. It has also been agreed that the record herein shall consist solely of the complaint and said agreement, that the agreement shall not become a part of the offcial record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission, that said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint, that said order to cease and desist shall have the same force and effect oras if entered after a full hearing and may be altered, modified, set aside in the manner provided for other orders, and that the complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order. This proceeding having now come on for final consideration on the complaint and the aforesaid agreement containing the consent order, and it appearing that the order and agreement cover all of the allegations of the complaint and provide for appropriate disposition of this proceeding, the agreement is hereby accepted and ordered fied upon this decision and said agreement becoming part of the Commission s decision pursuant to 21 and 3.25 of the Rules of Practice, and the hearing examiner accordingly makes the following findings, for jurisdictional purposes, and order: 1. Respondents David Lippel, David Gleicher and Arthur Herman are individuals and co-partners trading as Dorchester Woolen 644 FEDERAL TRADE CO::l:vnSSIOK DECISIO),T Decision 58 F.

Company with their principal place of business located at 218 West 37th Street, New York, New York.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents hereinabove named. The complaint states a cause of action against said respondents under the Wool Products Labeling Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, and this proceeding is in the interest of the public.

It is ordered That respondents David Lippel, David Gleicher and Arthur Herman, individually and as co-partners trading as Dorchester Woolen Company, or under any other name or names and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the 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 woolen fabrics or other "wool products, as such products are defined in and subject to said Wool Products Labeling 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 affx labels to wool products showing each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4, (a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

DECISION OF THE COllDIISSION AND OIilER TO FILE TIEPORT OF IPLL\NCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 27th day of April 1961, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly: It is ordered That respondents David Lippel, David Gleicher and Arthur Herman, individually and as co-partners trading as Dorchester Woolen Company, 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. A. EUSTADTER & SON, INC. , ET AL. 645 516 Complaint