Rosenblum'S, Inc., et al.

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

IN THE MATTER OF

ROSENBLUM'S, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS

Docket 8248. Complaint, Dec. 28, 1960—Decision, June 10, 1961

Consent order requiring Cleveland, Ohio, furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by labeling fur products deceptively with respect to the animals producing the fur; by failing to set forth the term "Dyed Mouton processed Lamb" on labels where required; and by failing to comply in other respects with labeling and invoicing requirements.

ROSENBLUM'S, INC., ET AL. 1073

1072 Complaint

COMPLAINT

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 Rosenblum's, Inc., a corporation, and Myron Rosenblum, Sidney Rosenblum, Joseph Amster, and Albert Amster, individually and as officers 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 I. Rosenblum's, Inc. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Ohio with its office and principal place of business located at 321 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio.

Myron Rosenblum, Sidney Rosenblum, Joseph Amster and Albert Amster are president, vice president, secretary and treasurer, respectively, of the said corporate respondent. These individuals control, formulate and direct the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent. Their offices and principal place of business are the same as that of the said 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, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution, in commerce, of fur products; and have sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce; and have substituted labels on fur products which have 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 of said fur products were misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely and deceptively identified with respect to the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were not labeled as required under the provisions of Section

Complaint 58 F.T.C.

4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

PAR. 5. 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 the following respects:

(a) Information required under Section 4(2) 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 "Dyed Mouton processed 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 9 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) 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.

(d) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not completely set out on one side of labels, in violation of Rule 29(a) of said Rules and Regulations.

(e) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in handwriting on labels, in violation of Rule 29(b) of said Rules and Regulations.

(f) Required item numbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 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, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

PAR. 7. 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.

Charles S. Cox, Esq., for the Commission. Ben Lewitt, Esq., of Cleveland, Ohio, for respondents.

ROSENBLUM'S, INC., ET AL. 1075

1072 Decision

INITIAL DECISION BY ROBERT L. PIPER, HEARING EXAMINER

The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents on December 28, 1960, charging them with having violated the Fur Products Labeling Act, the rules and regulations issued thereunder, and the Federal Trade Commission Act, by misbranding, and falsely invoicing their fur products. Respondents appeared and entered into an agreement, dated March 30, 1961, containing a consent order to cease and desist, disposing of all the issues in this proceeding without further hearings, which agreement has been duly approved by the Bureau of Litigation. Said agreement has been submitted to the undersigned, heretofore duly designated to act as hearing examiner herein, for his consideration in accordance with §3.25 of the Rules of Practice of the Commission. Respondents, pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, have admitted all of the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and agreed that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been made duly in accordance with such allegations. Said agreement further provides that respondents waive all further procedural steps before the hearing examiner or the Commission, including the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law and the right to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with such agreement. It has also been agreed that the record herein shall consist solely of the complaint and said agreement, that the agreement shall not become a part of the official record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission; that 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, that said order to cease and desist 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, and that the complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order. This proceeding having now come on for final consideration on the complaint and the aforesaid agreement containing the consent order, and it appearing that the order and agreement cover all of the allegations of the complaint and provide for appropriate disposition of this proceeding, the agreement is hereby accepted and ordered filed upon this decision and said agreement becoming part of the Commission's decision pursuant to §§3.21 and 3.25 of the Rules of Practice, and the hearing examiner accordingly makes the following findings, for jurisdictional purposes, and order: 1. Respondent Rosenblum's, Inc., is a corporation existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of

Decision 58 F.T.C.

Ohio, with its office and principal place of business located at 321 Euclid Avenue, in the City of Cleveland, State of Ohio.

Respondents Myron Rosenblum, Sidney Rosenblum, Joseph Amster, and Albert Amster are individuals and officers of the corporate respondent. They control, formulate and direct the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent. Their address is the same as that of the corporate respondent.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject-matter of this proceeding and of the respondents hereinabove named. The complaint states a cause of action against said respondents under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, and this proceeding is in the interest of the public.

It is ordered, That Rosenblum's, Inc., a corporation and its officers, and Myron Rosenblum, Sidney Rosenblum, Joseph Amster and Albert Amster, individually and as officers 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, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce of any fur product, or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution of any fur product which is made in whole or part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, or in connection with the substitution of labels on fur products which have 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. Misbranding fur products by:

A. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise 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; B. Failing to affix 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. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products: 1. Information required under §4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form; 2. Information required under §4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled with non-required information;

LEHRMAN FURS, INC., ET AL. 1077

1072 Complaint

3. Information required under §4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting.

D. Failing to set forth the term “Dyed Mouton processed Lamb” where an election is made to use that term instead of Lamb; E. Failing to set forth on labels affixed to Fur products all the information required to be disclosed under §4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder on one side of such labels;

F. Failing to set forth on labels 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 §5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 10th day of June 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 manner and form in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist.