Ince-Siegel, Inc., et al.

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

IN THE MATTER OF CE-SIEGEL, I , ET AL.

O)HilNT ORDER, ETC. IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEln:IL-\L TRADE C(n:Ins81O AND Tile FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 8263. Complaint, Dec. 960-Decision, Ap1". , 1961 C(JI,'WJ1t order reqnirillg Los Angel!;: furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by affxing to fur products tags printed with false guarantces that the products WE're not misbranded; by advertisements in ne\ys.papers \which failed to disclose the names of animals producing the fur in certain products or that some furs were artificially colored, used the term "hlended" improperly, and guaranteed falsely that fur products were not misbranded or arlvertised falsely; and by failng in other respeds to comply with invoicing and labeling requirements. CO::IrLAINT 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 Ads, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Inc.e Siegel, Inc. , a corporation, and Harry Ince and Ju1cs Siegel, individually and as offcers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fllr 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 folJo\\' PAIL-\GIL\.PH 1. Inee-Siegel, Inc. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue oT the laws oT the St.ate of California with its offce and principal place of business located 8 t 7()B South Hill Street, Los Angeles, California. , IXCE-SIEGEL , INC. ) ET AL. 609 608 CornplaiU1: Hespondents Harry Ince and Jules Siegel control, formulate and direct the acts and practices of the corporate respondent, including the acts and practices hereinafter referred to. Their address is the same as that of the corporate respondent. 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, offering for sale, transportation and distribution, in commerce of fur products; and have sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which ha1'e 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 Pro duets Labeling Act.

PAR. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded or otherwise falsely and deceptively labeled in violation of Section 4(1) the Fur Products Labeling Act in that labels affxed to fur products contained the following guarantee: "vVe guarantee that the fur products or furs specified herein are not misbranded nor falsely or deceptively advertised or invoiced under the provisions of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations thereunder when in truth and in fact such products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the ules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products TIere misbranded in that t.hey 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 Hegulations promulgated thereunder. PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were misbnmded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with t.he R.ules and R.egulations promulgated thereunder in that information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgnted thereunder was not completely set out on one side of labels in violation of Rule 29 (a) of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 6. 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, ane! in the manner and form prescribed by the Hules ane! Hegnlations promulgated thereunder.

PAR. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely ane! deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that thev were not invoiced in accordance with t.he Rules ancl RegulatiOl GI'I- n7- l)iJ- , ,, Complaint 58 F/I'.

promulgated thereunder in that the required itel11 numbers were not set forth on invoices in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 8. 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 newspaper advertisements, concerning said products, Vd1ich were not in a.accordance with the pnnTisions of Section 5 (a) of the said Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder; and which advertiscments were intended to aiel promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of said fur products.

PAR. D. Among and included in the advertisements as aforesaid but not limited thereto, were. advertisements of responde-nis which appeared in issues of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, a nmn,paper published in the City of Lns Vegas, State of Kevada, and having a ,vide circulation in srdd State. and various other states of the United States.

By means of said advertisements and others of similar import and meaning, not specifically reJerrec1 to here.1n, respondents falsely and tleceptively advertised fur products in that said rlc1vertisements: (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 :'ame 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) LJsed the term "blended" as part of the information required under Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products labeling Act and the Rules and R.eglllations promulgated thereunder to describe the pointing, bleaching, dyeing or tip-dyeing of furs, in violation of R.ule 19(e) of said R.ules and R.egulations.

PAR. 10. In advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid respondents falsely and deceptively adyertised fur products in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act by setting out in advertisements the following guarantee: " V e guarantee that the fur products or furs specified herein are not Inisbrandec1 nor falsely nor deceptively advertised under' the provisions of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and R.egulations promulgated thereunder hen in truth and in fact sneh fur products were falsely , .

!NCE-SIEGEL , INC. , ET AL. 611 Deci ion nd deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Regulations promulgated thereunder. PAR. 11. 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 thcreunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Arthv/J' 1V olter, J1' , E8q. supporting the complaint. J. Robert A1"C1l8h, Esq. of Los Angeles, Calif., for respondents. INITL\L DECISION BY LEON n. GROSS , H "RARING .EX.BfINER On December 30, 19GO, the Feclcral Trade Commission issued a compla.int against 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 R.egnlations promulgated thereunder by, among other thing, , misbranding fur products by setting ont a guarantee in their advertising and on labels affxed thereto, fa,filing to affx labels which plainly disclose required information; falsely or deceptively invoicing Iur products by railing (1) furnish required information thereon, and (2) to set forth on invoices the item numbers; and falsely and deceptively advertising fur products by failing to disclose (1) the name of the animal, producing the rur contained in the rur product adyertised, or (2) it is composed of artificially colored or blended fur, in the products they sell in interstate commerce. A true and correct copy of the complaint was served upon the respondents and each and an or them, as required by Jaw.

Thereafter respondents appeared by counsel and agreed to dispose of this proceeding without a formal hearing pursuant to the terms of an agreement dated February 7, 1961, containing consent order to cease and desist. The a.agreement was submitted to the under signed hearing examiner on February 17, 1961 , in accordance with 25 of the Comlnission s Rule or Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings. The agreement purports to dispose of this proceeding as to the respondents and each and a11 of them and contains the form of a consent cease and desist order which the parties have represented is dispositive or the issues involved in this proceeding. The agreement has been signed by the corporate respondent by its president, by the individual respondents individually and as offcers or said corporation, by thc llttorneys for the parties, and has been approved by the Assistant Director Associate Director, a.nd Director of t.he Bureau 612 J'DERAL TRADE COl1MISSION DECISIO:\S Findings 58 F.

of Litigation of the Federal Trade Commission. In said agreement respondents admit all of the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint and agree that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been made in accordance with such allegations. 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 contcst the validity of the 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 ancl the agreement; that the agreement shall not become a part of the offcial record unless and until it becomes a 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 when so entered such order 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 covelUwted 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 for final consideration on the complaint and the aforesaid agreement of February 7, 1961, containing 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 aU of the parties involved, said agreement is hereby accepted and approved as complying with 883.21 and 3.25 of the Commission s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings. The undersigned hearing examiner, having considered the agreement and proposed order a,nd being of the opinion that the accept.ance thereof "rill be in the public interest, makes the following findings and issues the follo\\'ing order:

:FINDINGS 1. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding; and this proceeding is in the public inter cst 2. Respondent 1nee-Siegel, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the 1a\VS of the State INCE-SIEGEI.) INC., ET AI.. 613 608 Findings of California. Individual respondents Harry Ince and Jules Siegel flre offcers of said corporate respondent. Said individual respondent.s formulate, direct and control the acts, policies and practices of the corporate respondent. An respondents have their offce and principal place of business at 706 South Hill Street, Los Angeles California.

3. Respondents are engaged in commerce as "commerce" is defined in the pertinent statutes which are invoked by the complaint med herein. Now, therefore I tis onlererl That I11ce-Siegel, Inc., a corporation, and Harry Ince and Jules Siegel, individuany and as offcers of said corporation and respondents' representatives, agents and mnployees, directly or through any corporate or ot.her device, in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising, or oiIering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce of fur products, or in connection wit.h 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 product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. Iisbranding fur products by:

A. Setting out a guarantee on labels affxed thereto that such fur products are not misbranded or falsely or deceptively invoiced or advertised under the provisions of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder when such is not the fact;

B. 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 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act;

C. Failing to set forth on labels affxed to fur products all the information required to be disclosed under \;4(2) of the Fur Prodacts Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations thereunder on one side of such Jabels.

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 Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act; B. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

3. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement, or directlynot.ice which is intended to a.id, promote or assist, 614 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIOl\ DECISIONS Syllabus 58 F.

or indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale of fur products and which:

A. Fails to disclose:

1. The name or llmnes of the animal or animals producing the fur or furs contained in the fur products as set forth in the Fur Prodnets Name Guide and as prescribed under' the Rules and Hegulations: 2. That the fur product contains or is composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur when such is the fact. B. Sets forth the term "blended" as part of the information required under 95 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Hules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder to describe the pointing, bleaching, dyeing or tip-dyeing of furs.

4. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products by setting out a guarantee in advertising that such fur products are not misbranded or falsely and deceptively invoiced or falsely or deceptively advertised under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Hules and Regulations promulgated thereunder when such is not the fact. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AXD ORDER TO FILE REPOR'l' OF CQ:\IPLL\NCB Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Hules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 13th dry of April 1961, 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 detail the lUanneI' and form in \vhieh they have complied with the order to cease and desist. IN T,m J\A TTER 0,' J\lIXX THRIFT SHOP, INC., ET AL.

CONSE)oT ORDER ETC. , IX REG,\RD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION 01lhe FEDERAL TR--\DE C01nnssIOX AXD THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 82GB. Comp7aiJit. Dec. 3(!, 1960-Decisinn AJii' 13. ;rIGl Consent order requiring Xew York City furriers to lea e violating the Fur Products Labeling Act oy failng to set forth the term "Dyed :\ioutou processed Lamb" on labels as required; by failng to use the words Persian Lamb" properly on invoices; b ' ndvPl'tising in l1c\\ spapel's \vbich failed to disclose the names of animals producing certain fuls or that some products ,were made of used fur, and to use the ,words "secondhand used fur" ,,,hen l'Cflnil'ed; fmd by failng in other l'e:"ped 10 comply witll adyertisillg. invoicing, aud labeling l'eqnircments. MINX THRIFT SHOP , IXC. ) ET AL, 615 614 Compl lint COllH' LADIT 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 :Minx Thrift Shop, Inc. , a corporation, and Harry Felcher and Moses Gottlicb, individually and as offcers of said corporation, 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:

PARAGRAPH 1. Minx Thrift Shop, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Kew York with its offce and principal place of business located at 1490 Third Avenue, New York, New York. Harry Feleher is president of said corporate respondent and Moses Gottlieb is secretary-treasurer of the said corporate respondent. These individuals control, formulate and direct the acts, practices and policips of the said c.corporate respondent. Their offce a,nel prineipal place of business is the same as that of the said corporate respondent.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 0, 1052, 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 anrl distdbution, in comme.rce, of fur products; and have sold, advertised, offered for s,de, 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. PAIL 3. 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 !Lccordance with the H.ules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following re,speets:

(a) Failure to set forth the term " Dyed Iouton processed Lamb" in the manner required where an election wa.s made to use that term instead of Lamb in violation of Rule 0 of said Rules and Regulations.

, , \ 616 FEDERAL TRADE CQ:'admission DECISIONS Complaint 58 F.

(b) 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.

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 J fo the Fur Products Labeling Act, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and R.egulations promulgated thereunder, PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not ill voiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (aJ Information required under Section ,5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The term "Persian Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required where an election was made to use that term instead or Lamb in violation of Rule 8 of said Rules and I,egulations. PAR. 7. Certain or said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Aet in that respondents caused the dissemination in commerce, as "commerce is defined in said Act, of certain newspaper 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. 8. Among and included in the advertisements, as aforesaid but not limited thereto ere advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of t.he Kew York Times, a newspaper publisl1ed in the City of :"ew York, State of New York and having a wide circulation in said State and yarious other States of the United States. By means of said advertisements, and others or similar import and meaning not speci fically referred to, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertisements: (a) Failed to disclose the name or names of the animal or animals t.lmt products the rur contained in the fur product, as set rorth in the Fur Products Kame Guide, in violation of Section 5(a) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

MINX THRIFT SHOP ET AL. 617 614 Decision (b) Failed to disclose that fur products were composed of used fur, when such was the fact, in violation of Section 5(a) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

(c) Contained information required under Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder set forth in abbreviated form in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

(d) The term "Persian Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required where an election was made to use that term instead or Lamb in violation of Rule 8 of said Rules and Regulations. (e) Failed to use the term "secondhand used fur" where required in violation of Rules 21 and 23 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 9. 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.

Mr. Anthony J. Kennedy, Jr. for the Commission. MT. Henry Parleer of New York, N. Y., for respondents. INITIAL DECISION BY ABNER E. LIPSCOMB, I-IEARlNG EXAMINER The complaint herein was issued on December 30, 1960, charging Respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, by misbranding and by falsely and deceptively invoicing and advertising certain of their fur products. Thereafter, on February 17, 1961, Respondents, their counsel, and counsel supporting the complaint herein entered into an Agreement Containing Consent Order To Cease And Desist, which was approved by the Director, Associate Director and Assistant Director of the- Commission s Bureau of Litigation, and, on February 24 , 1961, submitted to the IIearing Examiner for consideration. The agreement identijies Respondent Minx Thrift Shop, Inc., as a Xew York corporation, with its offce and principal place of business located at 1490 Third Avenue, New York, New York; Respondent Harry Felcher as an offcer of the corporate Respondent, located at the same address; and Respondent Moses Gottleb as a former offcer of the corporate Respondent, his address being 165 East 179th Street Bronx, New York. The agreement states that individual Respondents Harry Felcher and Moses Gottlieb formulated, controlled and directed the acts and practices of the corporate Respondent, including the acts and practices complained of in the subject complaint. , 618 FEDERAL TRADE CO:"IMISSION DECISIONS Decision 58 F.

Respondents admit aJl the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint, and agree that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been duly made in accordance with such allegations.

Respondents waive any further procedure before the Hearing Examiner and the Commission; the making of findings of fact and conclusions of law; 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 the agreement. All parties agree that the record on which the initial decision and the decision of the Commission shall be based shall consist solely of the compbint and the agreement; that the order to cease and desist, as contained in the agreement when it shall have become a part of the deeision of the Commission 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; that the complaint herein may be llsed in construing the terms of said order; and that the agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by Respondents that they have violated the bw as aJlegcd in the complaint. After consideration of the allegations of the complaint, and the provisions of the agreement and the proposed order, the .Hearing Examiner is of the opinion that such order constitutes a satisfactory disposition of this proceeding. Accordingly, in consonance with the t.terms of the aforesaid agreement, the Hearing Examiner accepts the Agreement Containing Consent Order To Cease And Desist; finds that the Commission has jurisdiction over the Respondents and over t.their acts and practices as alleged in the complaint; and finds that this proceecling is in the public interest. Therefore It i8 ordered That Respondents :\finx Thrift Shop, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and IIarry Fclcher, inc1ivic1ually and as an offcer of said corporation, and J\Ioses Gottlieb, inclivichmlly and as a former offcer of the corporate R.esponclent, ancl Respondents representatives, agents a,nd employees, directly or through any em'porate or other de'dce, in connection with the introduction into e011merce, or the sale, advertising or ouering for sale, trttnsportation or distribution in commerce of fur products; or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution of fur product.s which arc made in ,\'hole or in part of fur which bas 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:

A. Misbranding fur products by:

:MI1\"' THRIFT SHOP , INC. , ET AL. 619 014 Decision 1. 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 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Aet; 2. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Mouton processed Lamb" where an election is made to use that term instead of Lamb; 3. Setting forth on labels affxed 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;

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of 85(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act; 2. Setting forth information required under 85 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form;

3. Failing to set forth the term "Persian Lamb\' where an election \Vas made to use that term instead of Lamb; C. 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, the sale, or offering for sale, of fur products and which: 1. Fails to disclose:

(a) 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 Kame Guide and as prescribed under the Rules and Regulations;

(b) That the fur product is composed of used fur, when such is the fact;

2. Sets forth information required under 85(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the R.ules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form;

3. Fails to set forth the term "Persian Lamb" where an election is made to use that term instead of Lamb: 4. Fails to disclose that fur products contain or are composed of "secondhand used fur, when such is the fact. DRCISIOX OF THE CO:lDnSSJON AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIAKCE PUrSl1Rnt to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice lw. init.ial decision of the hearing examiner, shall on the 13th day of April 1061. become the decision of the Commission; and accordingly:

It i,s ordered That respondents finx Thrift Shop, Inc., a corporat.ion, and I-I,Fry Feleher individually and as an offcer of said co:rpo- 620 FEDERAL TRADE CO:NDvIISSION DECISIONS Complaint 58 F.

ration, and Moses Gottlieb, individually and as a former offcer of the corporate respondent, 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.