Maurice Cohen

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

In toe Marrer or MAURICE COHEN ET AL. TRADING AS MASTER FURRIERS CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABEL- ING ACTS Docket 6918. Complaint, Oct. 17, 1957—Decision, Apr. 2, 1958 Consent order requiring furriers in Duluth, Minn., to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to invoice and label fur products as required; by advertising in newspapers which failed to name the animal producing certain furs, represented prices as reduced from regular prices which were in fact fictitious, and failed to give a designated time of comparative prices; and by failing to maintain adequate records disclosing the facts on which such pricing claims were based.

Mr. Thomas A. Ziebarth supporting the complaint. Mr. Robert J. Karon, of Duluth, Minn., for respondents. Initia Decision or Joun Lewis, Hearinc ExXaMINER The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents on October 17, 1957, charging them with having violated the Fur Products Labeling Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder, and the Federal Trade Commission Act, through the misbranding of certain fur products and the false and leceptive invoicing and advertising thereof. After being served with said complaint, respondents appeared by counsel and filed their answer thereto. Thereafter the parties entered into an agreement, dated January 31, 1958, containing a consent order to cease and desist purporting to dispose of all this proceeding as to all parties. Said agreement, which has been signed by both respondents, by counsel for said respondents, and by counsel supporting the complaint, and approved by the director and assistant director of the Commission's Bureau of Litigation, has been submitted to the above-named hearing examiner for his consideration, in accordance with section 3.25 of the Commission’s rules of practice for adjudicative proceedings. Respondents, pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, have admitted all the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and agreed that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been duly made in accordance with such allegations. Said agreement further provides that respondents waive any further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission, the making of MASTER FURRIERS 1267 1266 Order findings of fact or conclusions of law and all of the rights they may have to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with such agreement. It has been agreed that the order to cease and desist issued in accordance with said agreement shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing and that the complaint may be used in construing the terms of said order. It has also been agreed that the record herein shall consist solely of the complaint and said agreement, and 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.

This proceeding having now come on for final consideration on the complaint and the aforesaid agreement containing consent order, and it appearing that the order provided for in said agreement covers all the allegations of the complaint and provides for an appropriate disposition of this proceeding as to all parties, said agreement is hereby accepted and is ordered filed upon this decision’s becoming the decision of the Commission pursuant to sections 3.21 and 3.25 of the Commission’s rules of practice for adjudicative proceedings, and the hearing examiner, accordingly, makes the following jurisdictional findings and order:

1. Respondents Maurice Cohen and Eugene Cohen, are individuals and co-partners trading as Master Furriers with their office and principal place of business located at 15 W. Superior Street, Duluth, Minn.

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 Fur Products Labeling Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, and this proceeding is in the interest of the public. ORDER It is ordered, That respondents, Maurice Cohen and Eugene Cohen, individually and as copartners trading as Master Furriers, or under any other name, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution of fur products in commerce, or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution of fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as “commerce,” “fur,” and “fur product” are defined Order 54 F.T.C.

in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1, Misbranding fur products by:

A. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying any such product as to the geographic origin of the animal that produced the fur from which such product was manufactured. B. Failing to affix labels to fur products showing: (1) The name or names of the animal or animals producing the fur or furs contained in the fur product as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide and as prescribed under the rules and regulations: (2) That the fur product contains or is composed of used fur, when such is the fact;

(3) That the fur product contains or is composed of bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored fur, when such is the fact; (4) That the fur product is composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, or waste fur, when such is the fact; (5) The name, or other identification issued and registered by the Commission, of one or more persons who manufactured such fur product for introduction into commerce, introduced it into commerce, sold it in commerce, advertised or offered it for sale in commerce, or transported or distributed it in commerce; (6) The name of the country of origin of any imported furs used in the fur product.

2. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products information required under section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder which is mingled with nonrequired information.

3. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing: (1) The name or names of the animal or animals producing the fur or furs contained in the fur product, as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide and as prescribed under the rules and regulations; (2) That the fur product contains or is composed of used fur, when such is the fact;

(3) That the fur product contains or is composed of bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored fur, when such is the fact; (4) That the fur product is composed in whole or in substantial part of the paws, tails, bellies, or waste fur, when such is the fact; (5) The name and address of the person issuing such invoice; (6) The name of the country of origin of any imported furs contained in a fur product;

(7) The item number or mark assigned to a fur product. MASTER FURRIERS 1269 1266 Decision 4. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, public announcement, or notice which is intended to aid, promote, or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale of fur products, and which: A. Fails to disclose the name or names of the animal or animals producing the fur or furs contained in the fur product as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide and as prescribed under the rules and regulations.

B. Represents, directly or by implication, that the regular or usual price of any fur product is any amount which is in excess of the price at which the respondents have usually and customarily sold such products in the recent regular course of their business. C. Makes use of comparative prices unless such compared prices are based upon the current market value of the fur product or upon a bona fide compared price at a designated time. D. Makes price claims and representations of the types referred to in paragraphs B and C above, unless there are maintained by respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based as required by rule 44(e) of the rules and regulations.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to section 3.21 of the Commission’s rules of practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shail, on the 2d day of April 1958, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly: Jt 1s 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. Decision 54 FLTC.