Furs by Gartenhaus, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF FURS BY GARTENHAUS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 7251. Complaint, Sept. 11, 1958—Decision, Jan. 10, 1959 Consent order requiring a furrier in Washington, D.C., to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by labeling fur products with fictitious prices represented as usual selling prices; by failing to comply with the invoicing requirements of the Act; by newspaper advertisements representing prices of furs as reduced from purported usual prices which were in fact fictitious, and representing false percentage savings; and by failing to maintain adequate records as a basis for such pricing claims. John T. Walker, Esq., for the Commission. Irving R. Pressman, Esq., for respondents. INITIAL DECISION BY JAMES A. PURCELL, HEARING EXAMINER The complaint in this proceeding issued September 11, 1958, charges the respondents above named with violation of the provisions of the Federa! Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the last named Act, in connection with the introduction into commerce, manufacturing, or offering for sale, sale, advertising, transportation or distribution of fur products, as the designations “commerce,” “fur” and “fur product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

After the issuance of said complaint respondents, on November 12, 1958, entered into an agreement for a consent order with counsel in support of the complaint, disposing of all of the issues in this proceeding, which agreement was duly approved by the director and assistant director of the Bureau of Litigation of the Federal Trade Commission. It was expressly provided in said agreement that the signing thereof is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint. By the terms of said agreement, the respondents admitted all of the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and agreed that the record herein may be taken as though the Commission had made findings of jurisdictional facts in accordance with such allegations. By said agreement the parties expressly waived a hear- Order 55 F.T.C.

ing before the hearing examiner or the Commission, the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law by the hearing examiner or the Commission, the filing of exceptions and oral argument before the Commission, and all further and other procedure before the hearing examiner and the Commission to which the respondents may otherwise be entitled under the Federal Trade Commission Act or the Rules of Practice of the Commission. By said agreement, respondents further agreed that the order to cease and desist issued in accordance with said agreement shall have the same force and effect as though made after a full hearing, presentation of evidence and findings and conclusions thereon, and specifically waived any and all right, power or privilege to challenge or contest the validity of such order. It was further provided that said agreement, together with the complaint, shall constitute the entire record herein; that the complaint herein may be used in construing the terms of the order issued pursuant to said agreement, and that the said order may be altered, modified or set aside in the manner provided for other orders of the Commission.

Said agreement recites that respondent Furs by Gartenhaus, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Maryland, with its office and principal place of business located at 1789 Columbia Road, NW., Washington, D.C. The individual respondents Isidore Gartenhaus, Bertram Gartenhaus, and Donald D. Gartenhaus are president, vice president and secretary, respectively, of said corporate respondent, and have the same address as that of the said corporate respondent.

The hearing examiner has considered such agreement and the order therein contained, and, it appearing that said agreement and order provides for an appropriate disposition of this proceeding, the same is hereby accepted and, without further notice to respondents, is ordered filed upon becoming part of the Commission’s decision in accordance with Sections 3.21 and 3.25 of the Rules of Practice, and in consonance with the terms of said agreement, the hearing examiner finds that the Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents named herein, and that this proceeding is in the interest of the public, wherefore he issues the following order: ORDER It is ordered, That Furs by Gartenhaus, Inc., a corporation, FURS BY GARTENHAUS, INC., ET AL. 1051 1049 Order and its officers, and Isidore Gartenhaus, Bertram Gartenhaus and Donald D. Gartenhaus, individually and as officers of said corportion, and respondents’ representatives, agents, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, manufacture for introduction, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale, in commerce, or the transportation or distribution, in commerce, of fur products, or in connection with the sale, manufacture for 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 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 such products as to the regular prices thereof by any representation that the regular or usual prices of Such products are any amounts in excess of the prices at which respondents have usually and customarily sold such products in the recent regular course of business.

2. 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 products 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 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. B. Setting forth information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form. C. Failing to set forth the term “Persian Lamb” in the manner required by law.

Decision 55 F.T.C.

D. Failing to set forth the term ‘Dyed Mouton processed Lamb” in the manner required by law.

E. Failing to set forth the term ‘Dyed Broadtail processed Lamb” in the manner required by law.

3. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, representation, 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. 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 respondents have usually and customarily sold such products in the recent regular course of business. B. Represents, directly or by implication, through percentage savings claims that the regular or usual retail prices charged by respondents for fur products in the recent regular course of business were reduced in direct proportion to the amount of savings stated, when contrary to fact.

4, Making price claims and representations of the types referred to in paragraph 8A above unless there are maintained by respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which'such claims or representations are based. 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 ‘shall, on the 10th day of January 1959, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly:

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.

H. STEIN & SONS, ING., ET AL. 1053 Decision