House of Arnold, Inc.. et al.

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

HOUSE OF ARNOLD, INC.. ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC.. IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 7622. Complaint, Oct. 22, 1959—Decision, Mar. 9, 1960 ‘Consent order requiring a Philadelphia furrier to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to use the terms “Persian Lamb” and “Dyed Broadtail-Processed Lamb” on tags and invoices as required, and to comply in other respects with labeling and invoicing requirements. Air, Dewitt LT. Puckett for the Commission. Fou, fothschtld, O'Brien & Frankel by Myr. Stephen J. Kron, of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondents.

Intriau Decision ny Evcar A. Burrie, Hearing Examiner On October 22, 1959, the Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against. the above-named respondents charging them with falsely and deceptively invoicing and advertising certain of their fur products in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Fur Products Labeling Act. On December 21, 1959, the respondents and counsel supporting the complaint entered into an agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist in accordance with section 8.25(a) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Commission.

Under the foregoing agreement, the respondents admit the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint and agree, among other things, that the cease and desist order there set forth may be entered without further notice and shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing. The agreement includes a waiver by the respondents of all rights to challenge or contest the validity of the order issuing in accordance therewith; and recites that the said agreement shall not become a part of the official record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission, and that it is for settlement purposes only and does not HOUSE OF ARNOLD. INC., ET AL. 104) 1040 Order constitute an admission by the respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint. The hearing examiner finds that the content of the said agreement meets all the requirements of Section 8.25(b) of the Rules of Practice. This proceeding having now come on for final consideration by the hearing examiner on the complaint and the aforesaid agreement. for consent order, and it appearing that said agreement provides for an appropriate disposition of this proceeding, the aforesaid agreement is hereby accepted and is ordered filed upon becoming part of the Commission's decision in accordance with Section 3.21 of the Rules of Practice: and in consonance with the terms of said agreement, the hearing examiner makes the following jurisdictional findings and order:

1. Respondent House of Arnold, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the State of Pennsylvania with its office and principal place of business located at 5508 Germantown Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsy]yania.

The corporate respondent formerly operated under the name of Germantown Fur, Inc.

Individual respondent Louis Aronovitz is president of the said corporation and controls, formulates and directs the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent. The office and principal place of business of the individual respondent is the same 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 undev the Federal Trade Commission Act, and this proceeding is in the interest of the public.

ORDER /t is ordered. That House of Arnold, Inc.. a corporation, formerly known as Germantown Fur. Inc., and its officers, and Louis Aronovitz, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and responents’ representatives. agents and emplovees, curectly 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. 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. Decision 56 F.T.C.

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 in words and figures plainly legible all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

B. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products: 1. Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

2. Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled with non-required information. C. Failing to set forth the term “Persian Lamb” in the manner required.

D. Failing to set forth the information required under Section 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 to purchasers of fur products an invoice showing all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 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.

D. Failing to set. forth the term “Dyed Broadtail Processed Lamb” in the manner required.

EE. Failing to set forth the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

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 9th day of March, 1960, become the decision of the Commission; and, according]y :

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. STRODE FURRIERS ET AL. 1043 Decision