Albert Vitoff

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

IN THE 11ATTER OF ALBERT VITOFF AND JOSEPH DAKZER TRADING AS VITOFF & DANZER CONSENT ORDER: J.;TC. , IN REGARD TO 'rne ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COJ\IlfISSIOX AND THE FUR l'lWDI7CTS LABELING ACTS Docket 7984. Complaint, June 24-, 1960-Decision, Jan. 24, 1961 Consent order requiring ::ew York City furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failng to set forth separately on labels information concerning different animal furs in a fur product; falsely invoicing fur pruducts with respect to names of animals producing certain furs; failng to set forth IJroperly on invoices the term "Dyed Mouton processed Lamb" where used; ann. failng in other respects to comply with labeling and invoicing requirements.

, VITOFF & DANZER 123 122 Complaint COl\PLAINT 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 COlllmission, having reason to believe that Albert Vitoff and .J oseph Danzer, individually and as copartners trading at 'litoff' & Danzer, he-reinafter 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 proceedipg by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Joseph Danzer and Albert Vitoff are individuals and copartners trading as VitofI & Danzer with their offce and principal place of business located at 12U West 2Uth Street, New York, New York.

PAH. 2. Subsequent to the effcctivc date of the Fur Products Labeljng Act on Augnst 9, 1952, respondents have been and are 110W engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in the manufacture ror introduction into commerce, and in the sale, advertising and offering ror sale, in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution, in commerce, of fur products, and have manufactured for sale, sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made ill 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.

PAR. 3. Certain or said fur products "'"ere 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 R.ules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in TIolation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance wit.h the Rules and Hegulations 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 W LS set forth in handwriting on labels, in violation of Rule 29(b) of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) Required item numbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Rcgulations. (c) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Laheling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder Decision 'i8 F. was not set forth sepal'ntcly on labels with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs, in violation of H.u1e 36 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and d cept.very invoiced by respondents in that they were not invoiced as required by Section D(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, and in the mallner and form prescribed by the R,uses and Regulations promulgated t.herBlUlcler.

\R. 6. Certain of said fni' products were falsely and deceptively illyojeed or othenvlse falsely and deceptively identified.d with respect to the name or 11,111e8 of the animal or animals that produced the fur from "which said fur products had been manufactured in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAn. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively inn)iced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling ). ct in that they ere not. invoirer1 in accordance with the Hllles and Regulations promulgated therellllc1er in the following respects: (a) Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Produc.ts Labeling AC1 and the Rules and Rel!ulations prol1ulgnt.cd tlwrEmnder ,,-as set forth in abbreviated form, in violation of Hnle 4 of said Rules ann HpgnJations.

(b) The term " Dyed Ionton processed Lamb" was not set forth in the llUllller required ,,,l1(1'e an election ,vas made to use that term instead of Dyed Lamb in violation of Ence f) of said Rules and !!1l1ations.

(c) Required item numbers ,,,ere not set forth on invoices in violenioH of R,ule 40 of said Rules and Regnlations. \H. 8. The aforesaid acts allcl pmdices of respondents, as herein alleg' ecl, are, in violation of the Fur Prodl1ets Labeling Act and the Rnles and Hegnlations prolllllgatecl therennder, nnd eonstirllte 11Jfail' and rleceptiye acts and practices in commerce under the Fp.c1eral Trade Commission Act.

nt,Trut T. Plld' pff. E8q. supporting the c.complaint. Cl/ides GoldbGl'g. Esq. of Xl'w York 1 , R. , for respon(lents. IXITL-\L DECISION BY LEOS R, Gnoss\ HE,\RING EXX:\lIXER On .June 24 , 1D60, the Federal Trade Commission issued a complaint against the above-named respondents, in which they were cl1arp.ed \\-ith violating the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Fnr Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder by, among other things, misbranding, putting VITOFF & DANZER 125 122 Decision required information on labels in handwriting, omitting required item numbers from labels, omitting informa,tion from labels, falsely and deeeptiyely invoicing, falsely and deceptively identifying, and falling to give information concerning respondents' fur products sold by said respondents in interstate commerce. A true and correct copy of the complaint was served upon the responde,nts and each and all of them, as required by la,,' . Thereafter respondents appeared hy counsel anclllgreed to dispose of this proceeding without a formal heating pursuant to the terms of an agreement dated September 15 1960 containing eonsent order to cease and desist. The agreement was submitted to the undersigned hearing examiner on September-r 28 10Gn, in acc.orclance \with 25 of the COIl1nission s Hulcs of Practice for \.cljuclieatiYe Proceedings. The agreement purports to dispose of this proeceding: as to the respondents and each and all of them and contains the form of n consent cease-and-desist order which the parties ha VB represented is dispositi yc of the issues involved in this proceeding. The ngl'cemcnt has ocen signed by the respondents inrlivic1ually fllle1 fls copartners trading as Vitoff & Danzer, by the attorney for the respondents, by counsel snpporting the complaint and has brill appl'oyec1 by the -:\ssistnnt Dire,('j or, Associate Director and Acting Director of the Durean of Litigatioll of the Federal Track Commission. In snicl agreement of September 1.5, 1900 respOJ1tlents aamit all of the jurisclictionaJ facts alleged in the complaint and agree that the record m lY be taken as if findings of jurisdictional fads had been made in accordance ,,,ith such allega t.ons. In the agreement. the respondents ,waive: (a) any further procpdurnl steps before the hearinf! examiner and the Commission; (b) the making" of findings of filet or conclusions of Inw; and (c) rights respondents may hnye to challenge or contest the validity of the order to c.eflse and desist entered in accordance with the agreement. The parties further ttgree, in said agreement, that the record on ,which the initittl decision and the decisions of the Commission shall be basl'll hall consist solely of the, complaint anel the agreement; that the agreement. shan not become a part of the offeial record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Federal Trade Commission; that the, order to cease and de.sist entered in this proceecling by the Commission m lY be entered without further notice to 1 he respondents, and when so entered such order win have the 8,1me foree and effect as if entered after a fun heariIlO'. Said onlet mily be altered, JTlodified or set aside in the manner provided for other orders. The complaint may be used in construing the terms of the on10r.

, 126 FEDERAL TRADE COM:ISSION DECISIONS Findings 58 P.

The parties have covenanted that the said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint.

This proceeding having now come on Tor final consideration on the complaint and the aforesaid agreement of September 15 , 1060, conta.ining consent order, and it appearing that the order which is approved in and by said agreement disposes of all the issues presented by the complaint as to all of the parties involved, said agreement of September 15 , 1060, is hereby accepted and approved as complying with \)3.21 and \)3.25 of the Commission s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings. The undersigned hearing examiner, having considered the agreement and proposed order and being of the opinion that the acceptance thereof will be in the public int.erest, makes the following findings and issues the following order:

:FINDINGS 1. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding; 2. Hespondents Albert Vitoff and Joseph Danzer are eopartncrs trading as Vitoff & Danzer, with their offce and principal place of business located at 129 1Vest 29th Street, K ew York, New York; 3. Hespandents are engaged in commerce as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act;

4. The complaint fied herein states a cause of action against the respondents under the Federal Trade Commission Act and under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Rcgnlations issued pursuant thereto; and this proceeding is in the public interest. Now, therefore It i8 ordered That Albert Vitoff and Joseph Danzer, individually and as copartners, trading as 'litoff & Danzer or under any other trade name, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees in connectiondirectly or through any corporate or other device, with the introduction, or manufacture for introduction, into commerce, or the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution of fur products, in commerce, 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 COITUllGrCe as "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: VITOFF & DANZER 127 122 Decision 1. Misbranding fur products by:

A. Failing to affx labels to fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of 94(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act; B. Setting forth on labels affxed to fur products information required under 94(2) of thc Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Hegulations thereunder in handwriting; C. Failing to set forth separately on labels attached to fur products composed of bvo or more sections containing different animal furs the information required under 94(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to the fur comprising each section; D. Failing to set forth on labels affxed to fur products the item number or mark assigned to a fur product; 2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Failing to furnish to purchasers of fur products invoices showing all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of 85 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act; B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing or otherwise falsely or dece.ptively identifying any such product as to the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which such product was manufactured;

C. Setting forth on invoices information required under 95 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form; D. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Mouton processed Lamb" where an election is made to use that term instead of Dyed Lamb; E. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

DECISION OF co:rnnssrox AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF C03fPLIAXCE Pursuant to Section 3. 1 of the Commission s Rules of Practice the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on thc 24th day of January, 1961 , become the decision of the Commission; and according)y:

It is ordered That respondents Albert Vitoff and Joseph Danzer individually and as copartners trading as Vitoff & Danzer, shall within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing, setting forth in detai l the manner and form in which they have complied with the ordcr to cease and desist.

Complaint 58 F.