Manny Pruskauer

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

MANNY PRUSKAUER, ET AL. TRADING AS MANNY PRUSKAUER COMPANY CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD. TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 7857. Complaint, Apr. 6, 1960—Decision, Aug. 81, 1960 Consent order requiring Chicago furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to comply with labeling requirements and by advertising in catalogs, circulars, and postcards which failed to disclose the name of the animal producing the fur in a fur product or the country of origin of imported furs, failed to reveal when fur products were composed of artificially colored fur, falsely guranteed that fur products were properly labeled, and failed in other respects to comply with requirements of the Act.

MANNY PRUSKAUER COMPANY 525 524 Complaint Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Manny Pruskauer, Jess Pruskauer and Irwin Gellar, individually and as copartners trading as Manny Pruskauer Company, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint, stating its charges in that respect as follows:

Paracrapu 1. Manny Pruskauer, Jess Pruskauer and Irwin Gellar are individuals and copartners trading as Manny Pruskauer Company with their office and principal place of business located at 818 West. Adams Street, Chicago, Tlinois. Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in the sale, advertising and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution, in commerce, of fur products and have sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which had been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms “commerce,” “fur” and “fur product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, and have sold, advertised, offered for sale, or processed fur products which have been shipped and received in commerce upon which fur products a substitute label has been placed by respondents. Par. 8. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were not labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Par. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

(a) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was mingled with non-required information, in violation of Rule 29(a) of said Rules and Regulations. (b) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth separately on labels with respect to Complaint 57 F.T.C.

each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs, in violation of Rule 36 of said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that respondents caused the dissemination in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in said Act, of certain advertisements concerning said products, which were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(a) of the said Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder; and which advertisements were intended to aid, promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of said fur products.

Par. 6. Among and included in the advertisements, as aforesaid, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in catalogs, circulars and postcards published in the State of Illinois and circulated in said state and various other States of the United States.

By means of said advertisements and others of similar import and meaning, not specifiaclly referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertisements: (a) Failed to disclose the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product, as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide, in violation of Section 5(a) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

(b) Failed to disclose that fur products contained or were composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur, when such was the fact, in violation of Section 5(a) (3) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

(c) Failed to disclose the name of the country of origin of the imported furs contained in the fur products, in violation of Section 5(a)(6) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. (d) Falsely and deceptively guaranteed that fur products were labeled in accordance with Federal Trade Commission Regulations when such was not. the fact, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

(e) Failed to set. forth the full and complete term “Dyed Mouton processed Lamb” whien an election was made to use that term instead of “Lamb”, in violation of Rule 9(a) of the said Rules and Regulations.

(f) Failed to set forth the information required under Section 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, in violation of Rule 38(a) of said Rules and Regulations.

MANNY PRUSKAUER COMPANY 527 o24 Decision Par. 7. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations: promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

William A. Somers, Esq., for the Commission. Irwin Gellar, Esq., of Chicago, Il., for respondents. Inzriau Decision py Ropert L. Preer, Heartnc EXAMINER The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents on April 6, 1960, charging them with having violated the Fur Products Labeling Act, the rules and regulations issued thereunder, and the Federal ‘Trade Commission Act, by misbranding and falsely representing their fur products. MRespondents appeared by counsel and entered into an agreement, dated June 14, 1960, containing a consent order to cease and desist, disposing of all the issues in this proceeding without further hearing, which agreement has been duly approved by the Bureau of Litigation. Said agreement has been submitted to the undersigned, heretofore duly designated to act as hearing examiner herein, for his consideration in accordance with § 3.25 of the Rules of Practice of the Commission.

Respondents, pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, have admitted all of the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and agreed that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been made duly in accordance with such allegations. Said agreement further provides that respondents waive all further procedural steps before the hearing examiner or the Commission, including the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law and the right to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with such agreement. It has also been agreed that the record herein shall consist solely of the complaint and said agreement, that the agreement shall not become a part of the official record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission, that said agreement is for settlement. purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint, that said order to cease and desist. 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, and that the complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order. This proceeding having now come on for final consideration on the complaint and the aforesaid agreement containing the consent Order 57 FTC.

order, and it appearing that the order and agreement cover all of the allegations of the complaint and provide for appropriate disposition of this proceeding, the agreement is hereby accepted and ordered filed upon this decision and said agreement becoming part of the Commission’s decision pursuant to $§ 3.21 and 3.25 of the Rules of Practice, and the hearing examiner accordingly makes the following findings, for jurisdictional purposes, and order: 1. Respondents Manny Pruskauer, Jess Pruskauer and Irwin Gellar are individuals and copartners trading as Manny Pruskauer Company, with their office and principal place of business located at 318 West Adams Street, Chicago, Tl.

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 lt is ordered, That Manny Pruskauer, Jess Pruskauer and Irwin Gellar, individually and as copartners trading as Manny Pruskauer Company, or under any other trade name, 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 offering for sale in commerce, or the 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 products” 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 §4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act;

B. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products information required under §4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled with nonrequired information ;

C. Failing to set forth separately on labels attached to fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs the information required under §4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to the fur comprising each section. MANNY PRUSKAUER COMPANY 529 524 Decision 2. 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, and 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; 3. The name of the country of origin of any imported furs contained in a fur product.

B. Falsely or deceptively guarantees that fur products are labeled in accordance with Federal Trade Commission regulations when such is not the fact.

C. Fails to set forth the full and complete term “Dyed Mouton processed Lamb” when an election is made to use that term instead of Lamb.

D. Fails to set. forth the information required under Section 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.

It is further ordered, That in connection with the selling, advertising, offering for sale or processing of fur products which have been shipped and received in commerce that respondents cease and desist from using substitute labels on such fur products that do not contain all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of §4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act or do not conform to the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the said Act.

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 31st day of August 1960, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly :

It is ordered, That the above-named respondents shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report. in writing, setting forth in detai] the manner and form in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist.

6409686335 Complaint 57 E.T.C.