Projansky, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF PROJANSKY, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLA TION OF THE FEDERAL 'TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LATIELIl\' G ACTS Docket 7276. Complaint, Oct. 10, l058-Decision, Feb. , 195.9 Consent order requiring a furrier in Roche ter, N, , to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by labeling fur products with excessive fictitious In"ices represented as regular seHing prices; by identifying them falsely in labeling and advertising with respect to the names of animals which produced the fur; by failing to comply \with other labeling requirements of the Act; anci by advertising in newspapers which failed to disclose the names of animals producing certain furs or that some products containerl cheap or waste fur, or to set forth the term "Dyed Mouton processed Laml)" in the manner required, and represented prices as reduced from purported regular prices which were in fact fictitious. lvlr. S. Y House for the Commission. Baker Cat?Jer hy Mr. Rarton Baker of Rochester, N. , for respondents.

INITIAL DECISION BY ABNER E. LIPSCO:vB, HEARING EXAMINER The complaint herein was issued on October 10, 1958, charging respondents with misbranding and falsely and deceptively advertising certain of their fur products, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and of the Fur Prod ucts Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Thereafter, on t\ovember 20, 1958, respondents, their counsel and counsel supporting the complaint herein entered into an Agreement Containing Consent Order to Cease and Desist, which was approved by the director and an assistant director of the Commission s Bureau of Litigation, and thereafter submitted to the hearing examiner for consideration.

The agreement identifies respondent Projansky, Inc. as a New York corporation, with its offce and principal place of business located at 39 East Avenue, Rochester, N. , and respondent Henri P. Proj ansky as president of said corporate respondent, in \which capacity he formulates, directs, and controls the acts, policies and practices thereof, his address being the same as that of the saiel corporate respondent.

Respondents admit a11 the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint, and agree that the record may be taken as if findings 1118 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIOXS Order 55 F.

of jurisdictional facts had been duly made in accordance with such allegations.

Respondents waive any further procedure before the hearing examiner and the Commission; the making of 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 the agreement. All parties agree that the record on which the initial decision and the decision of the Commission shall be based shall consist solely of tbe complaint and the agreement; that the order to cease and desist, as contained in tbe agreement, when it shall have become a part of the decision of the Commission, shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing, and may be altered, modified or set aside in the manner provided for other orders; that the complaint herein may be used in construing the terms of said order; and that the agreement is for settement purposes only, and does not constitute an admission by the respondents that they have violated the law as aJ1eged in the complaint. Having considered the allegations of the complaint and the provisions of the agreement and the proposed order, the hearing examiner is of the opinion that sllch order constitutes a satisfactory disposition of this proceeding. Accordingly, in consonance with the terms of the aforesaid agreement, the hearing examiner accepts the Agreement Containing Consent Order to Cease and Desist; finds that the Commission has jurisdiction over the respondents and over their acts and practices as alleged in the complaint; and finds that this proceeding is in the public interest. Therefore It is o?' dered That Projansky, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and Henri P. Projallsky, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, 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, or oflering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce of any fur products, or in connection with t.he sale, advertising, ofiering for salc, transportation, or disiribution of any fur product which is 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:

PROJANSKY, INC., ET AL. 1119 1117 Order 1. Misbranding fur products by:

A. Failing to affx 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 iniroduction 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 contained in a fur product;

E. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying any such product as to the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which such produd was manufactured; C. Representing on labels affxed to the fur products, or in any other manner, that certain amounts are their regular and usual prices, \vhen such amounts arc in excess of the prices at which respondents have usually and customarily sold such products in the recent, regular course of business;

D. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products information required under !;4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the rules and regulations promulgaled thereunder in abbreviated form;

2. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the llse of any advertisement, representation, public announcement cr 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:

(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 is composed in whole or in substan- Decision 55 F.

tial part of paws, tails, bellies, or waste fur, when such is the fact;

R. Fails to set forth the term "Dyed Mouton Processed Lamb" in the manner required;

C. Fails to set forth the information required under 95 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, in type of equal size and conspicuousness, and in close proximity with each other; D. 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; 3. Falsely or deceptively advertising or otherwise identifying any such product as to the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which such product was n1anufactured.

DECISION OF Tile 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 7th day of February J 959, hecome the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly:

It is ordered That respondents Projansky, Inc., a corporation and Henri P. Projansky, individually and as an afIeer of said corporation, 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.

VOSS !lair EXPERTS OF GEORGIA 1121 Decision