Lincoln Luggage Company, Inc.

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

IN THE J\UTrR OF LIKCOLN LUGGAGE COMPANY, IKC., ET AL.

CDXSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN HEG.ARD TO TUE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF 'THE FEDERAL TRADE CO IlIISSION ACT Docket C-100, Complaint, .:Ia/". .?J, 1962-Dceision. .:10!" Consent order requiring Xew York City lugg-age manufacturers to cease such misrepresentations as stating falsely on attached tags that their luggage ,vas Flight tested br TWA", that their Zephyrlite line was "Nationally advcrtised", and that '; "\Ve chose Alcoa Aluminum" when their products contained no aluminum except for affxed strips of alumiuUI1 foil simulating aluminum. CO::IPL"\lnt Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act ,lld by virtue of the authority vested in it. by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that Lincoln Luggage Company, Inc., a corporation, and IIarry B. Silverman and Herbert Siherman, indiyidufllly and as offcers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to lis respondents, have 'iiolatecl the provisions of said Act ,, 602 FEDERAL TRADE CO:HMISSIOX DECISIONS Complaint 601'-' and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues it:; cmnplnint stating its charges in that respect as follows: P AR\GRAPII 1. Respondent, Lincoln Luggage Company, Inc. , is a corporation organized, exis6ng and doing business uncle.r and by virtue of the Ja,yS of the State of Xew York, ,,'ith its oftice and principal place of business located at 18 ,Vest 18th Street, Xew York, )f. Respondents Harry B. Silverma.n and :Herhert Silverman are officers of the corporate respondent. They formuhlte, direct and control the acts and practices of the corporate respondent, inc.ucling the acts and practices hereinafter set forth. Theil' address is the same as that of the corporate respondent.

PAR. 2. Respondents are nmy, and for some time last past have been engaged in the manufacture, advertising, oflering for sale, sale and distribution of luggage of various kinds to retailers for resale to the public.

\R. 3. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents llmy cause, final for some time last past have caused, their said products when sold, to be shipped and transported from their place of business in the State of New York to purchasers thereof located in thc various other states of the l united States, and maintain, and at all times mentioned herein have maintained, a substantial course of trade in said products in commerce, as "C01lInerCC" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 4. In the course and conduct of their business, as aforesaid; and for the purpose of inducing the sale of their luggage, respondents attach, or cause to be attached, tags to their luggage upon which certain representations are made about the eonstructlon of, and materials used in, saidlug-gagc. Among and typical of the statements and representations appearing thereon, and others of similar import and meaning but not specifically set forth herein, are the follmyjng: (a) Flight tested by T'VA.

(b) Another famous Lincoln product flight tested and approved by TWA Airlines.

(c) Kationally advertised Zephyrlite.

(d) \Ve chose Alcoa Aluminum. Alnminnm COllpany of America. PAR. 5. Through the USe of the. foregoing statement.s and representations and others of similar import and meaning but not specifically set, out herein, respondents haye represented, and do now represent, directly or by implication:

(a) That the luggage mal1Ufflcturec1 by the respondents to which as attached the tags bearing the iyords set forth in paragraphs 4-(a) LIXCOLN LUGGAGE CO. , IKC. ) ET AL. 603 601 Decision and Order anda(b), above, had been tested and approved by Trans 'World Airlines for use in airplane travel.

(b) That the luggage knmnl as "Ze,phyrlite" 'I\"fls currently being ad \-er6sed throughout the l-;united States. (e) That the luggage manufactured by the respondents, to which 'Will attached a tag bearing the words set forth in paragraph 4(c1) above is composed of solid aluminum or contains almninum in significant quantities.

PAR. 6. Said statements and representations "' cre false, misleading nnd deceptive. In truth and in fact:

(a.) No luggage manufa.ctured by the respondents has ever been tested or approved by Trans 'Vorld Airlines, and the use of sta.tements set forth in paragraphs 4(a) and 4(b) has never been authorized by said Trans 'V orld Airlines.

(b) The, luggage known as "Zephyrlite ' is not currently adyertised nationally.

(c) The luggage manufactured by the respondents, to which was a ttachecl a tag bearing the 1\orc1s set forth in paragraph 4 ( d) , a.bove contains no aJuminllln except t.wt there is affxed to the said luggage longitudinal strips of aluminum foil encased in plastic and made to simulate solid aluminum.

PAR. 7. In the conduct of their business, at all 6mes mentioned herein, re.spondents have been in substantial competition, in commerce with other corporations, firms and individmds in the sale of products of the same genera.l kind and nature as that sold by respondents. PAR 8. The use by respondents of the aforesaid false, misleading and deceptive statemenis, representations and practices had, and now has, the capacity and tendency to misle,ael members of the purchasing public into the erroneous anellnistaken belief that saiel statements and representations were and are true and into the purchase of substantial quantities of respondents' products by reflson of said erroneous and mistaken belief.

PAR. 9. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, 'I\"ere, and are, all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents competitors and constituted, and now constitute, un. filiI' methods of competition in commerce and unfair and deccptive acts and practices in conune,rce, in violation of Section 5 (a.) (1) of the, Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION AND OlWEI- The Commission having heretofore determined to issue iis cOlnplnint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof ,\"ith violation of the Fec1e.ral Trade Commission Act, and the respondents having Decision and Order 00 F.

been selTed \yjt.h notice of said cletennination and with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together \Y1tll a proposed form of order; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission 1m "jug thereafter executed an agreement containing 1t consent order, an admission by respondents of an the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to issue herein, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settienumt purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as set forth in such complaint, and "waivers and provisions as required by the Commission rules; and The Commission, having considereclthe agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent, Lincoln Luggage Company, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of tho State of New York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 18 "lVest 18th Street, New York, N. respondents Harry B. Silverman and Herbert Sih-ennan are offcers of sflid corporation and their address is the same as that of said corpora tlon.

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 1 t ;s o)'dered That the respondent, Lincoln Luggage Company, Inc. a corporation, and its officers, and respondents IInny B. Silverman and I-Ierbert 8iller11an, indiyidnaJIy and as ofIccrs of said corporation, and respondents' agents, represcntati,"es and employees, directly or through any corporate 01' other device, in connection ".itll the nufaeturillg, advertising, offering for sale, sale and distribution of luggage, or related products, in commerce, as ;'commerce" is defined by the Federal Trade Commission Act, do fOltJnvith cea:-e and desist from representing, directly or by ilnp1ication: 1. That any such product sold by respondents has bee,a tested and approyecl by Trans ,Vorlcl Airlines or by any other concern. 2. Thilt, any such product sold by the respondents is eurl'cntly being nationally advertised.

3. That any such product sold by respondents is composed of solid aluminum or contains a,lumjnlll1 in significant qUfUltjt.ies or o1.he1"yiso misrepresenting the nature and type of material use,d in their products. BARNETT' & 'WEITZXER, IXC., ET AL. 605 601 Complaint It '/8 That the respondents herein shall, ,within fllrthM' ordered 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, THg i\L4.TTER OF BAR:"ETT & WEITZKER, INC., ET AL, COXSEXT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE \ALLEGED VIOLATIOK OF THE FED- ERAL TRADE COJ.OIISSIOK AND THE F17R PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-I0l. COn/pla.int, Jior. 1962-Decision, Mal'. , 1962 Consent order n.-quiring ?\ ew York City manufacturing furriers to cease vio. lating the Fur Products Labeling Act by falsely labeling and invoicing artifidally colored fur as natural, failng to disclose on labels and invoices when fur products were bleached or dyed, and to label and invoice as natural products ,,,hieh were not artificially colored; setting forth on labels tlle name of an animal other tllan that producing the fur; and failng in other respets to comply with labeling and invoicing requirements. CO)IPh\INT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the :Fnr Products Labeling .\ct, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Barnett &; \Veitzner, Inc., a corporation, and Joseph Barnett, and Adolph 'Weitzner, individually and as officers of the said corporatlon, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said ..Acts and the Rules and Hegulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof ,,,auld be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Barnett & \Veitzner, lpc., is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by vlrHle of the laws of the State of e'\1' York '\with its offce and principal.l place of business located at 345 Seventh j-\.-enlle, New York 1 , N. Individual respondents .Joseph B,u'nett and Adolph Weitzner are president and treasurer, respectively, of the c.corporate respondent. Said individuals coope.n\.e in formulating, directing and controlling the acts, policies and practices of tllc corporate respondent including 606 FEDERAL TRADE COM::HSSION DECISIOKS Complaint GO F.

the acts and pra.ctices hereinafter referred to. Their offce and prineipal place of business is the same as that of the said corporate respondent.

IR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9 1952, and more especially since 1954, respondents ha.1'8 been and arc now engaged in the introduction into 0011- Ineree, and in the l11unufacture for introduction into commerce, and in the sale, advertising, and offering for saJe, 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 fur which has been shipped and received in commerce as t.he terms "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were falsely or deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely or deceptively identified to show that the fur contained therein was natural whrm, in fact, such fur was bleaehed, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 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 t.he Fur Products Labeling Act 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 disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in the labels affxed thereto set forth the name of an animal other than the name of the animal that produced the fur, in violation of Section 4 (3) of the Fur Pro duets Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products 'were misbra.nded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in tlmt fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherrrisc artificially colored ,were not described as natural, in violation of Rule ID(g) of the said Eules and Regulations. PAR. T. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondents in that they ,were not invoiced a.s required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act anel in the BARXETT & WEITZNER , INC. ) E'l AL. 607 G05 Decisioll and Onler manner a.nd fOrln prescribed by the Rules and Hegn1a.tions promulgated thereunder.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were invoices p81taining to such fur products 'tyhich failed to disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored when such was the fact. PAR. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively illvoiced by the respondent ill that said fur products were invoiced to show that the fur contained therein was natural when, in fact, such fur was bleached, dyed, or othenyise artificially colored, in violatioll of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 9. Certain of said fur products were falsely and decepti\-ely invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance ,with the Rules and R.egulations promulgated thereunder in that fur products \which were not pointed bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, were not described as natural, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of the said Rules and R.egulations.

PAR. 10. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and R.egulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfajI' and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the 1, ec1eral Trade Commission Act.

DBCISIOX AND OIWER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the captioll hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondents having been served with notice of said determination and ,with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter' executed an agreement containing a consent order, a,n admission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to issue herein, a statement that the sig11ing of said agre,ement is for settlement purposes only and docs not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as set forth in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission s rules; and The Commission, having considered the agreeme, , hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by saiel agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

, , 608 FEDERAL TRADE CO:\L\nSSIO DECISIONS Decision and Order GO F.

1. Hpsponclent Barnett & 1Veitzner, Inc., is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the la,yS of the State of Kew York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 345 Seventh Avenue, in the city of Kew York, State of New York.

Respondents JosephBarnett and Adolph Weitzner 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 I ti.s ordered. That respondent Barnett & ",Yeitzner, Inc., a corpomotion, and its offcers, and respondents Joseph Barnett and Adolph ",Veitzller, individually and as offcers of said corporation, nnd respondents representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, or manufacture lor introduction, into commerce, or the sale, advertising, 01' offering for sale, in commerce, or the transportation or dist.ribution in COllll1erce, of fur products; or in connection with the manufacture for sale, sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution, of fur products which are made in whole or in part of fur -which has been shipped and received in commerce, as "commerce fur and "fur proc1uct' are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act do IortlnYith cea.se and desist from:

1. Misbranding fur products by:

Ad Failing to affx labels to fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of thc subsections of Section '1(2) of the Fur Produds LabelingAct.

Representing directly or by implication that the JU1' contained in fur products is natural when such is not the fact. C. Setting forth on labels attached to fur products the name or names of any animal or animals other than the name of the animal producing the fur contained in the fur product as speeified in the Fur Products Kame Guide, and as prescribed under the Rules and Regulations.

D. Failing to describe fur products which are not pointed, 1Jleachcd dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, as natural. 2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. ailing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showin ,words and figures plainly legible all the information required to , , J. MEISELS 609 Complaint be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

B. Representing directly or by implication that the fur contained in fur products is natura.l, when such is not the fact. C. Failing to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, as natural. It 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 detajl the 111anner and form in which they have complied with this order.