Lehrman Furs, Inc., et al.

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

IN THE l\iatter OF LEHRMAK FliRS, IKC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER ETC. , IX REGARD TO THE \ALLEGED VIOLATIQX OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COl\DnSSIQX A::-- Tile FUR rnODUCTs LABELING ACTS Docket 82"/. Complaint, Dec. 30, 1.960-Decision, June 10, 1961 Consent order requiring New York City furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failng to disclose on labels and invoices when furs were dyed and by failng to comply in other respects with labeling and invoicing requirements.

CO::IPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labehng Act, and by virtue of the authority , , 1078 FEDERAL TRADE CO;VrnISSlO~ DECISIONS Complaint 58 F.

ve-sted in it by said Acts, the Federa.l Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Lehrman Furs, Inc., a corporation, and Louis Lehrman, individually and as an offcer 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 ,, ould be in the public interest hereby issues its complaint sta6ng its charges in that respect as follows :

PARAGRAPH 1. Lehrman Furs, Inc. 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 245 "lYest 29th Street, :New York, K ew York. Louis Lehrman is president of the said corporate respondent and controls, directs and formulates the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent. His oiIee and principal place of business is the same as that of the said corporate respondent. PAR. 2. Subsequcnt to the ei!active date of the Fur Products Label ing 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 had been shipped and received in commerce, as "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAn. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they carried labels showing the name of the fur, without disclosing that the product was dyed, thus implying that such fur was of natural color when such was not the fact, ill 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 Sec60n 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, and in the manner and form prescribed by t.he Hules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were. falsely and deceptively invoieed in that thry were not invoiced as required under the provisions of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fl1 Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prcscribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoice,d in th t invoices pertaining to such products contained the LEHRMAX FURS , INC., ETAL. 1079 1077 Decision name of the fur without disclosing that the product was dyed thus implying that such fur was of natural color, when such was not the fact in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 7. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, arc in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder, and CDnstitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

llfr. Clwrlcs S. Cox for the Commission. l11r. Charles Goidberq, of New York for respondents. INITIAL DECISIO:\ BY EDGAR A. BUTTL:E , l-IEARIXG EXAMINER On December 30, 1960, the Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents charging them with violation of the pI"Jyisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Fur Products Labeling Act in c-Connection with the introduc6on into commerce, and the sale, advertising and offering for saJe, transportation and di tribution of fur products. On March 24 , 1961, the respondents and counsel supporting the complaint entered into an agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist in accordance with section 3.25(a) of the Rules of Practice and Proeedurc of the Commission. Under the foregoing agreeme, the respondents admit the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint and agree, among other things, that the ce,ase and desist order there set forth may be entered without further notice and shall ha.ve the same foree and effect as if entered after a Iull hearing. The agreement includes a waiver by the re,spondents of all rights to challenge or contest the validity of the order issuing in accordance therewith; and recites that the sftid agreement. shall 110t become a part of the ollcial record unless and until it becomes a, part of the decision of the Commission, and that it is for settlement purposes only, does not constitute an admission by the respondents that they have violated the law as al- Jegecl in the compla,int, and that said. complaint may be used in construing the terms of the, order. The hearing examiner finds that the c.content of the said agreement meets all the requirements of section 3.25 (b) of the Rules of Practice.

This proceeding having Do\Y come on for final consideratjon by the hearing examine.r on the c.complaint and the aforesa.id agreement for c-onscnt order, and it appe lring that said agreement provides Order 58 F.

for an appropriate disposition of this proece,ding, the aforesaid agreement is hereby accepted and is ordered filed upon becoming part of the Commission s decision in accordance with section 3. of the Rules of Practice; and in consonance with the terms of said agreeme. , the hearing examiner makes the following jurisdictional findings and order.

1. Respondent Lehrma.n Furs, Inc., 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 245 West 29th Street, :\ew York, New York. H.respondent Louis Lehrman is president of the said corporate respondent a,nd controls, dire.cts and formulates the acte: practices and policies of the said corporate respondent. His office and principal place of business is the same as that. of the saill corporate respondent. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents hereinabove na,med. The complaint states a CHU:;C of action against said respondents under the Federa.l Trade, Commission Act, and this proceeding is in the interest of the public.

OHDEH It (yJ'de?'ed That respondents I.lchrman Furs: Inc.: a corporation and its offcers, and Louis Lelll'l1wn, hlc1ividunlJy and as an offcer of saiel corporation, ancl respondellt ' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connecbon with the introduction into commerce, 01' the, sale, advertis-ing, or offering for sale in comlnerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce of fur products, or in connection with the sale, advertising, otrering for sale: transportation, or distribution of fur products which are nUlc1e in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as "commerce "fur" and "fur produce' are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Misbranding fur products by:

A. Representing, directly or by implication on labels t.hat furs or fur products are natural ,,,hen such is not the fact. B. Failing to aflix labels to fur products shmving in words a, figures plainly legible all the informlLtion required to be disclosed by each of the subsedions of section 4(2) of the J;ur Produds Labeling Act.

2. Falsely or deceptively iuvoicing fur products by: A. Hepresenting directly or by implication on invoices that furs or fur products are natural when suell is not the fact. BIWOKFIELD HATS, D,T , ET AL. 1081 1077 Complaint B. 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. DECISION OF THE COMUISSION 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 i8 ordered That respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days aft.er service upon them of this order, fie with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form