Jack Kotuk

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

IN THE )Jxrn:n OJ' JACK KOTUK ET AL. TRADING AS KOTUK & CHA VIN CONSENT ORDER , ETC., IN REGARD TO Tile ALLEGED Violation OF THE FEDERAL TRADE C01'DnSSIO AND THE FUR Products LABELI G ACTS Docket 8238. Comp aj.nt, Dec. 1960-Dec-ision, Muy 1961 Comment order requiring 1\ ew York City furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by setting out fictitious prices on invoices; by fnmishing false guaranties that certain of their fur products were not misbranded, falsely invoiced, and falsely advertised; and by failing to comply with labeling and invoicing requirements. C01.:IPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Ad, and by virtue of the authority vcstcd in it by said Acts, thc Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Jack Kotuk and Abraham Ackerman, individually and as copartners trading as Kotuk & Chavin, 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 bc in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in t.hat respect as follows: PARAGHAPI- 1. Jack I\:otuk and AlJraham A_ckerman are individuals and copartners trading as Kotuk & Chavin \with their offce and principal place of business located at 345 Seventh A venue, X ew York, New York.

, 686 FEDERAL TRADE CO:MMISSIO DECISIONS Complaint 58 F.

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 manufacture for introduction into commerce, and in the sale, advertising, and offering for sale, 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 in whole or in part of flu which had bccn shipped and received III commerce as the terms "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defuled in the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 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 Hules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they wcrc not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and R,egl1lations promulgated thereunder vms not completely set out. on Olle side of labels in violation of Hule 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 thcreunder.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptivcJy invoiced in that the respondents set out on invoices certain prices of fur products which were in fa,ct fictitious in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 7. Respondents furnished false gua,ranties that certain of their fur products were not misbranded, falsely invoiced and falsely advertised "\"hen respondents in furnishing such gl1arant5es had reason to believe the fur products so falsely guaranteed would be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in connncrce, in violation of Section 10 (b) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. P AU. 8. The aforesaid acts and' pnlC6ces of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute un fair and deceptive acts and practices, in COlm11erec, under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

KOTCK 6. CHA"FIX 687 685 Decisioll !lir. Oharles W. O' Oonnell supporting the complaint. Mr. Oharles Goldbe.rg, of New York, X. Y. , for respondents. INITIAL DECISION BY W ALTEH Ie. BENNETT HEARING EXAJ'IIXER The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents on December 28 , 1960. The complaint charged respondents with misbranding and falsely and deceptively invoicing, fur products. Said acts and practices were charged to be in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act.

On March 7, 1961, counsel submitted to the undersigned hearing examiner an agreement, among respondents, their counsel, and counsel supporting the complaint, providing for the entry without further notice of a consent order. The agreement was duly approved by the Director, the Associate Director and the Assistant Director of the Bureau of Litigation.

The hearing examiner finds that said agreement includes all of the provisions required by Section 3.25 (b) of the Rules of the Commission, that is:

A. An admission by all the respondent parties thereto of jurisdictional facts;

B. Provisions that:

1) The complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order;

2) Thc order shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing;

3) Thc agreement shall not become a part of the offcial record of the proceeding unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission;

4) The entire record on which any cease and desist order may be based shall consist solely of the complaint and the agreement; 5) The order may be altered, modified, or set asidc in the manner providcd by statute for other orders;

C. \Vaivers of:

1) The requirement that the decision must contain a statement of findings of fact and conclusion of law;

2) Further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission.

In addition the agreement contains the following permissive provisions: A waiver by the respondents of any right to challenge or contest the validity of the order entered in accordance with the 688 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIQXS Order 58 F.

agreement, and a statement that the signing -of 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.

Having considered said agreement" including the proposed order and being of the opinion that it provides an appropriatc basis for settlement and disposition of this proceeding; the hearing examiner hereby accepts the agreement but orders that it shall not become a part of the offcial record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission.

The following jurisdictional findings are made and the following order issued:

1. Respondents Jack Kotuk and Abraham Ackerman are individuals and copartners trading as l\:otuk & Chavin with their offce and principal place of business located at 345 Seventh Avenue in the City of New York, State of X ew York. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents. OImgl' It is ordered That Jack Kotuk and Abraham Ackerman, individuals and copartners trading as ICotuk & Chavin 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, manufacture for introduction, 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, manufacture for sale, advertising, oirering 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 as "commerce, "fur" and" lur product" arc defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act do forthwith cease and desist from: A. :Misbranding fur products by:

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 Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Failing to set forth on labels all of the information required to be, disclosed under Section 4(2) of the Fur Vroclucts Labe.ling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder on one side of such labels.

MICKEY WAKS ET AL. 689 685 Complaint B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. 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. 2. Representing directly or by implication on invoices that the former, regular or usual price of any fur product is any amount which is in excess of the price at which respondents have formerly, usually or customarily sold such products in the recent regular course of business.

C. Furnishing a false guaranty that any fur or fur product is not misbranded, falsely invoiced, or falsely advertised, when the respondents have reason to believe that such fur or fur product may be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in commerce. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AXD ORDER TO Fll REPORT OF COMPLIAKCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall on the 4th day of May 1961, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly: It is 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