Ritz Thrift Shop, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF RITZ THRIFT SHOP, T , ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE C01lDUSSION AXD THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 7980. Complaint, June 24, 1960-Decision, Feb. 3, 1961 Consent order requiring ew York City furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failng to set forth the term "Persian Lamb" properly, misusing the term "blended" , and failing in other respects to comply with labeling and invoicing requirements. , 132 FEDERAL TRADE CO:\:\ISSION DECISIONS Complnjnt 58 F.

COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Ad, and by virtue of the authority vested in it. by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to belieyc that Ritz Thrift Shop, Inc. , a eorpol'aJion, and Haphael Kaye, Daniel Kaye, and :\rilton Kosof, iudivic1ually and as offcers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents have violated the provisions of said Ads and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the. Fur Products Labeling Act and it appearing to ihe Commission that a proceeding by it in respect t.hereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its cha.rgesin that respect as follows: PARAGIL\PH 1. Ritz Thrift Shop, Inc. is a corporation organizpd existing and doing business under and by virtue of the l!nys of the State of N8"Y York ,,'itlt its office and principal place of business located at 107 ,Yest 57th Street, Kew York, New York. Raphael ICaye, Daniel Kaye and :Milton Kosaf Hre preside, , vice president and secretary, and trensurer, rcspeethTely, of the said corporate respondent. These individuals control, formulate and dire,et the nets, praetiee,s awl policies of the said corporate respondent. Their offces and principal.l place of business are the same as tha, of the said corporate respondent.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August D, 1952, respondents lU1ve been and fire nmy engaged in the introduc.tion into eommeTCP and in the, sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the trn.nsporta.tioll and distribution, in commerce, of fur products, and have sold advertised, offered for sale, transported and distribllj-ed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur "\which had been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms '"com1lerce fur and " fur prodl1ct: are defined in the Fur Produ(',ts Labeling Ad. . 8. Certain of said fur products "\yen lnisbranded in that they were not labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling- Act find in the manner Rnd form prescribed by the Rules and I e,gulations prol1nlgnted thereunder.

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur proc1uets were misbranded in viohi.ion of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they "\were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Heg111ations proll111gai"ed therennder in the follmying respects:

(a) The term "Persian Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required w"here an election was made to llse that term instead of Lamb in vio1atioll of Rule 8 of the said Rules and R,e,g1l1ations. q, RITZ THRIFT SHOP INC. ET AL. 133 131 Decision (b) The term "blended" was used as part of the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe the pointing, bleaching, dyeing or tip-dyeing of furs, in violation of Rule 10 (e) of said Hules and Hegulations. (c) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder ,vas mingled with non-required information, in violation of Rule 29(a) of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by respondents in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

\R. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance with t.he Rules and Regulations promulgaf( thereunder in the following respects: (a) The term Persian Lamb was not set forth in the manner required where an election was made to use that term instead of Lamb in violation of Rule 8 of the said Rules and llegulations. (b) The term Persian Broadtail Lamb was not set forth in the manner required where an election was made to use that term instead of Lamh in violation of Rule 8 of the said Rules and R.egulaticn1s.

(c) The term " h1en,led" was used as part of the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the H.nks and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe the pointing-, blcflching-, dyeing or tip- dyeing of 1111'S, in violation of Ru 1e 19 (e) of said Rules and Regulations. m. 7. The aforesaid acts and practice of respondents, as here-in alJei!cd, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Aet and the Rules and R.egulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

De Witt T. Puckett. Esq. snpporting the complaint. Artlw.r teillber Esq. of Kew York 17, 0LY. for respondents. INITIAL DECISIO BY LEON R. Gnoss, I-IEARING EXAl\IINER On .June 24 , 1960, The Federal Trade Commission issued a complaint agrlinst the above-named respondents, in which they were charged with violating the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations profflll- 134 FEDERAL TRADE CO fMISSION DECISIONS Decision 58 Fgated thereunder by, among other things, misbranding in that they were not labeled a,s required, and frdsely and deceptively invoicing fur products sold by respondents in interstate COlnmerce. A true and correct copy of t.he complaint was served upon the respondents and each and all of them, as required by law. Thereafter respondents appeared by counsel and agreed to dispose of this proceeding without a formal hearing pursuant to the terms of an agreement dated ovember 17, ID60, containing consent order to cease and desist. The agreement was submitted to the undersigned hearing examiner on December 7, 1960 , in accordance with 25 of the Commission Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings. The agreement purports to dispose of this proceeding as to the respondents and each and all of them and contains the form of a consent cease-anddesist order which the parties have represented is dispositive of the issues involved in this procccding. The agreement has been signed by the corporate respondent by its prcsident, by the individual respondents individually and as offcers of said corporation, by the attorneys for the parties, and has been approved by the Assistant Director Associate Director and Director of thc Bureau of Litigation of the Federal Trade Commission. In said agreement, respondents admit all of thc jurisdictional facts allegcd in the complaint and agree that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been made in accordance with such a.llegntions. In the agreement the respondents waive: (a) any further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission; (b) the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law; and (c) all rights respondents may have to challenge or contest the validity of thc order to cease and desist entered in accordance with the agreement. The parties further agree, in said agreement, that the record on which the initial decision and the decision of the Commission shall be based shall consist solely of the complaint and thc agreement; that the agreement shall not bccomc a part of the official record unless and until it bccomes part of the decision of the Federal Trade Commission; that the order to cease and desist entered in this proceeding by the Commission may be entered without further notice to the respondents, and ",hen so entered it will have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing. Said order may be altered modified or set aside in the manner provided for other orders. The complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order. The parties have covenanted that the said a.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.

RITZ THRIFT SHOP, INC., ET AL. 135 131 Findings The proceeding having now come on for final consideration on the complaint and the aforesaid agreement containing consent order and it appearing that the order which is approved in and by said agreement disposes of aJl the issues presented by the complaint as to all of the parties involved, said agreement of November 17, 1960 , is hereby accepted and approved as complying with 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 interest, makes the following findings and issues the following order:

FIXDI 1. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding; 2. Respondent Ritz Thrift Shop, Inc., is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York with its offcc and principal place of business located at 107 'Vest !ith Street, Kew York 3. Raphael Kaye, Daniel Kaye and Milton Kosof are offccrs of said corporate respondent. These individuals control, formulate and direct thc acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent. Their offces are the smne as that of said corporate respondent. 4. R.respondents ate engaged in commerce as "commerce" is defmed in the Federal Trade Commission Ad and the Fur Products Labeling Act;

5. The complaint filed 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 Regulations issued pursuant thereto; and this proceeding is in the public interest. Now therefore I t is O1'dered That Ritz Thrift Shop, Inc., a corporation and its indi-offcers, and Raphael Kaye, Danicl Kaye and Milton Kosof, vidually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce or the sale, advert ising, or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce of fur products, or in connection with t.he 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 a.nd received in. commerce, as "com- Decision 58 F.

merce " "fur" and "fur product." arc defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do fortlnvith cease and desist from: A.1. Failing1isbrandingto affxfur labelsproductsto furby:products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of 84(2) of the Fur Products Laheling Act;

B. Failing to set forth the term Persian Lamb where an e.lection is made to use that term iuste,ad of lamb. C. Setting forth on labels affxed to fur products: 1. The t.erm "blended" as part of the information required under 84(2) of (he Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules ,md Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe the pointing, bleaching, dyeing or tip-dyeing of furs;

2. Information required under 84(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Hules and Hegulatiol1s promulgated thereunder mingled with non-required information.

2. FnJsely 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 8iJ(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act; B. Failing to set forth the term Persian La,mb where an election is made to use that term instead of Lamb; C. Failing to set forth the term Persian Broadtail Lamb \Vhere an eleetion is made to use that term instead of Lamb; D. Setting forth on invoices pertaining to fur produds the term blended" as part of the information required under 85(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe the pointing, bleaching, dyeing or tip-dyeing of furs.

DECISION OF THE CO: DIISSION AXD ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COl\PLL\ Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 3rd day of February 1961, become the decision of the Commission; a,nel, accordingly:

I t is ordered. That Ritz Thrift Shop, Inc., a corporation and its offcers, and Raphael ICaye, Daniel Kaye and l\Iilton Kosof, indiviclually and as offcers of said corporation, 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 iu which they have complied ,with the order to cease and desist. G. & M. , INC. , ETC. 137 137 Decision