Quality Furs, Inc.

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

In rye Marren or QUALITY FURS, INC., ET AM..

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 7467. Complaint, Apr. 2, 1959—Decision, July 15, 1959 Consent order requiring a furrier in New York City to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by pricing. fur products fictitiously. on consignment invoices to customers by failing to maintain adequate records as a basis for such. pricing claims, and by failing in other respects to comply with invoicing and labeling requirements.

Mr. Kent P. Kratz, supporting the complaint. Respondents, pro se.

Intrtat Decision or John Lewis. Hearine EXAMINER The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against. the above-named respondents on April 2, 1959, charging them with having violated the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations issued thereunder, and the Federal Trade Commission Act, Decision 56 F.T.C.

through the misbranding of certain fur products and the false and deceptive invoicing and advertising thereof. After being served with said complaint, respondents appeared and entered into an agreement, dated May 14, 1959, containing a consent order to cease and desist, purporting to dispose of all of this proceeding as to all parties. Said agreement, which has been signed by 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 findings of fact or conclusions of Jaw 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 Jaw 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. Respondent Quality Furs, 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 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York.

Individual respondents Herman Suskind and Peter Manthus are QUALITY FURS, INC., ET AL. 67 65 Order officers of said corporation and formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of said corporation. Their office is located at the same address as that of the corporate respondent. 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 Quality Furs, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Herman Suskind and Peter Manthus, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction or manufacture for introduction, into commerce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale, 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. 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 fux when such is the fact; (4) That the fur product is composed in whole or in substantial part. of paws, tails, belles 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.

Order 56 F.T.C.

B. 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 mingled with non-required information.

-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.

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. Representing, directly or by implication, that the respondents’ regular or usual price of any fur product is any amount in excess of the price at which the respondents have usually and customarily sold such product in the recent. regular course of business. D. Representing, directly or by implication, that any person’s regular or usual price of any fur product is any amount in excess of the price at which such person has usually and customarily sold such product in the recent regular course of business. 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 respondents’ regular or usual price of any fur product is any amount in excess of the price at which the respondents have usually and customarily sold such product in the recent regular course of business; (b) Represents, directly or by implication, that any person’s regular or usual price of any fur product is any amount in excess of the price at which such person has usually and customarily sold such product. in the recent regular course of business : BASIC BOOKS, INC., ET AL. 69 65 Decision (c) Misrepresents in any manner the savings available to purchasers of respondents’ fur products.

4. Making claims or representations in advertisements respecting prices or values of fur products unless there are maintained by respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and 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 initia) decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 15th day of July, 1959, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly: It ts 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.