Ben Kahn Furs Corp.

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

IK THE :MATTER OF BEN KAH FURS CORP. ET AL.

SEKT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COl\I:IISSION AND THE F"CR Products LABELING ACTS Docket 8286. Complaint, Dec. 1960-Decision, May, 1961 COhsent order requiring New York City furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by setting forth fictitious prices on invoices; by failing in other respects to comply with invoicing and labeling requirements; and by furnishing false guaranties that certain of their furs were not misbranded, falsely invoiced, and falsely advertised. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions 01 the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and by virtue 01 the authority vested in it by said Ads, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Ben Kahn Furs Corp., a. corporation, and Ben E::ahn Bernard J\iarson, Ernest Graf and Theodore n::ahn, individually and as officers of said corporation hereinafter referred to as respondents, 118 ye violated t.he provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Iiabf:ling Act, and it a,ppea.ring to the Commission that a, proceed- Complaint 58 ing 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. Ben Kahn Furs Corp. is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York with its offce and principal place of business located at 150 west 30th Street, New York, New York. Individual respondent.s Ben Kahn, Bernard Marson, Ernest Graf and Theodore Kahn are offcers of the corporate respondent and control, direct and formulate the acts, practices and policies or the corporate respondent. Their offce and principal place of business 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 ha vo 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 fur which had been shipped and received in commerce as the terms "commerce, "fur" and "fur product" ate defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they v,'ere not labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and iu the manner and form prescriberl 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 that 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 Rulc 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.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that repondents set out on invoices certain prices or fur products which were in fact fictitious in violation or Section 5(b) (2) or the Fur Products Labeling Act.

BEN KAlIK FURS CORP. ET AL. 775 773 Decision PAR. 7. 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 the H,ules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that 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. P AU. 8. R.respondents furnished false guaranties that certain of their fur products were not misbranded. falsely invoiced and falsely advertised when respondents in furnishing such guara,nties had reason to believe that fur products so falsely guaranteed would be introduced sold. transported or distributed in commerce, in violation of Section 10(b) of thc Fur Products Labeling Act. 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 Iiegulations promulgated thereunder a,nd constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Fedend rrrade Commission Act.

!ir. Charles TV. Connell supporting thc complaint. !i,.. Charles Goldberg, of New York, N. Y. , for respondents. ITIAL DECISION BY J Ol-IN B. POIKDEXTElr, I-IE),Rl G EXA:\:IXER On December 28 , 1960, the Federal Trade Commission issued a com pI flint charging the above-named respondents ,vlth misbranding and falsely and deceptively invoicing certa.in of their fur products in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products LabcJing Act.

After issuance and service of the complaint the respondents, their attorney, and counsel supporting the complaint entered into an agreement for a consent order. The agreement has been approved by the Director, Associate Director and the Assistant Director of the Bureau of Litigation. The agreement disposes of the matters complained about.

The pertinent provisions or said agreement are as follows: Respondents admit al1 jurisdictional facts; the complaint may be used in construing the terms or the order; the order shan have the same force and effect as if entered after a fuJJ hearing and the said 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; the record herein shan consist solely of the complaint and the agreement; TBspondents waive the requirement that the decision must contain a statement of findings of fact and conclu- , 776 FEDERAL TRADE CONBfISSIOK DECISIOXS Opinion 58 F.

sions of Jaw; respondents \Valve furthe.r procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission, and the order may be altered, modified, or set aside in the manner provided by stf1tl1te for other orders; respondents \vajve any right to chal1cnge. or cont.est the validity of the order entered in accordance "with t.he agreement and the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that. t.hey have violated the law as alleged in the complaint. The undersigned hearing examine-I' having considered the agreement and proposed order, hereby accepts suell agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and issues the following order: JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS 1. R.respondent Ben ICahn Furs Corp. is a corporation existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York with its offce and principrtl place of In!siness located at 150 West 30th Street, K ew York, K ew York.

2. R.esponde,nts Ben I\:nhn, Bernard 1\Ifll'son, Ernest Graf and Theodore Irahn arc offcers of t.he corporate respondent. and control direct and formulate the acts, practices and policies of the corporate respondent. Their address is the same as that of the corporate respondent.

3. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents hereinabove named and the proece,ding is in the public interest. ORDER It is ordered That Ben Kahn Furs Corp., a corporation, and its officers, and Ben Kn, , Bernard )J lson, Ernest Graf and Theodore J\:ahn, individually and as offcers of said cOl'porlltion, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, cbrectly or through any corporate or other c1e"ice, in connection ' with the 1ntroc1action manufacture forintroclnction, or the sa.le, advertising or offering for sale in commerce8 of fnr products or in connection with the sa.1e, manufacture for sftle advertising, offering Jor sale transportation or distribution of fur proclncts ",Yhich have been made in ""h01e or in part of fur which has been shipped nnl1 rcccived in commerce, as "comnlerce " "fur:: and 'c fllt product:' are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. :Misbranding fur products by:

1. Fa.filing to nilx labels to 1\u' products shmying jlj '\voll1s and figures plainly legible all t.he information reqnirecl to be disclosed IKTERSEAS FUR TRADING , INC. , ET AL. 777 773 Syllabus by each of the subsections of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Setting forth on labels affxed to fur products information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and R.egulations promulgated thereunder mingled with non-required informat.ion.

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 Sechon 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Setting forth information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and R.egulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

3. Representing, directly or by implication, on invoices that the former, regular or usual prices 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 C01.DIISSION AND ORDER TO FILE HEPOHT OF CO IPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s R.l11es of Practice the initial decision of the hearing examiner shah on the 16th day of )1:8Y 1961 become Lhe decision of the Commission; and, accordingly: It ordered That the respondents herein shan within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report ill writing setting forth in detail the manner and form