A. E. Troutman Company

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

IN THE MATTER OF A. E. TROUTMAN COMPANY ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 7403. Complaint, Feb. 6, 1959—Decision, June 9, 1959 Consent order requiring furriers in Greensburg, Pa., to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to comply with the labeling, invoicing, and advertising requirements; and, in advertisements in local newspapers, failing to disclose the names of animals producing certain furs or that certain furs were artificially colored, and representing prices as reduced without maintaining adequate records as a basis therefor. Mr. Garland S. Ferguson for the Commission. Sullivan and Cromwell, of New York, N.Y., for respondent A. E. Troutman Company.

Respondents B. Poverman, Inc., and B. Poverman, for themselves.

INITIAL DECISION BY J. EARL COX, HEARING EXAMINER The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents on February 6, 1959, charging them with having violated the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

On April 13, 1959, respondent A. E. Troutman Company and its counsel entered into an agreement with counsel in support of the complaint for a consent order; and on April 14, 1959, respondents B. Poverman, Inc. and B. Poverman entered into a similar agreement.

Under the agreements, the respondents admit the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint. The parties agree, among other things, that the cease and desist orders there set forth may be entered without further notice and have the same force and effect _as if entered after a full hearing, and the documents include waivers by the respondents of all rights to challenge or contest the validity of the order issuing in accordance therewith. The agreements further recite that they are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint. Order 55 F.T.C.

The hearing examiner finds that the content of the two agreements meets all of the requirements of §3.25(b) of the Rules of the Commission.

The hearing examiner is of the opinion that the two agreements and the proposed orders provide an appropriate basis for disposition of this proceeding as to all of the parties. Accordingly, the agreements are hereby accepted, the following jurisdictional findings made, and the following order issued. 1. Respondent A. E. Troutman is a corporation existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, with its office and principal place of business located at 200 South Main Street, Greensburg, Pa. Respondent B. Poverman, Inc., is a corporation existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its office and principal place of business located at 370 Seventh Avenue, New York, N.Y. Respondent B. Poverman is an officer of B. Poverman, Inc. He formulates, directs and: controls the policies and practices of said corporation, and his address is the same as that of the corporate respondent, B. Poverman, Inc. 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. Therefore, It ts ordered, That respondents A. E. Troutman Company, a corporation, and its officers; B. Poverman, Inc., a corporation, and its officers; B. Poverman, individually and as officer of said corpceration; 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 in commerce of fur products, or in connection with the 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 product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Misbranding fur products by:

A. 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;

A. E. TROUTMAN COMPANY, ET AL. 1939 1937 Order (2) That the fur product contains or is composed of used fur, when such is the fact;

(8) 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 contained in a fur product; ;

(7) The item number or mark assigned to a fur product; B. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products: (1) Information required under §4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form;

(2) Information required under §4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled with nonrequired information; (3) Information required under §4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting;

C. Affixing to fur products labels that do not comply with the minimum size requirements of one and three-quarter inches by two and three-quarter inches;

D. Failing to set forth the information required under §4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the required sequence; 2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur producis 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;

(8) That the fur product contains or is composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur, when such is the fact; Decision 55 F.T.C.

(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; 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. 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 contains or is composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur, when such is the fact; B. Fails to set forth the information required under §5(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; 4. Making price claims and representations respecting prices and values of fur products unless respondents maintain 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 The Commission having considered the initial decision of the hearing examiner wherein he accepted two agreements containing identical consent orders to cease and desist executed by the respondents and counsel in support of the complaint, service of which initial decision was completed on May 7, 1959; and It appearing that the initial decision may be deficient in that it fails to incorporate the substance of certain pertinent provisions of the agreements of the parties: It is ordered, That said initial decision be, and it hereby is, amended by inserting between the second and third paragraphs thereof the following paragraph:

A. E. TROUTMAN COMPANY, ET AL. 1941 1937 : Decision Under the agreements, the respondents admit the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint. The parties agree, among other things, that the cease and desist orders there set forth may be entered without further notice and have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing, and the documents include waivers by the respondents of all rights to challenge or contest the validity of the order issuing in accordance therewith. The agreements further recite that they are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint. It is further ordered, That the initial decision as so modified shall, on the 9th day of June 1959, become the decision of the Commission.

It is. further ordered, That the respondents, A. E. Troutman Company and B. Poverman, Inc., corporations, and B. Poverman, individually and as an officer of B. Poverman, Inc., 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 contained in said initial decision.

Decision 55 F.T.C.