Brookfield Hats, Inc.

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

in which they have complied with the order t.o cease and desist.. Ix THE fatter BROOKFIELD HATS, I:,C., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL 'TRADE COMl\ISSIOX AXD THE Fun PRODUCTS I,LABELING ACTS Docket 8289. Complafnt, Feb. 1961-Decision, June 10, 1961 Consent order requiring New York City furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by falsely identifying fur products on invoices with respect to animals producing the fur; stating falsely on invoices that continuing guaranty of compliance with the Act bad been filed with the Commission; failng to set forth "Dyed Broadtail processed Lamb" on invoices where required; and failng in other respects to comply with in voicing and labeling requirements.

COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Aet and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and by virt.ue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Brookfield Hats, Inc., a corporation, and Louis Rose and Anne Rose, 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 t.hat a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respcct as foJ1ows:

PARAGRAPH 1. R.respondent. Brookfield Hats, Inc. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the 1082 ,"CDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint 58 F.

laws of the State of Kew York with its ollee and principal place of business located at 1040 Sixth Avenue, K ew York, New York. R.respondents Louis Rose and Anne Hose control, direct and formulate the acts, practices and policies of the corporate respondent. 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 $), 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 oiIering for sale, transportation and distribution, in commerce of fur products; and have manufact.llrecl for sale, sold, advertised oftered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in 1\'hole or in part of fur which had been shipped and received in commerce as the terms "commerce fur:: and "fur produce' are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 3. Certain of said :fur prollucts were misbranded in that they wore not labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4 (2) of tlle Fur Products Labeling Act. and in the manner and form prescribed by the Hules and Hegulations promulgated t.hereunder. \H. 4. Certain of said fur products 'were Inisbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordanee with the Rule.s all(1 HeguJnt.ions promulg' a,ted thereunder in that informat.ion required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products La beling ct and the H.nles and Regulations promulgated thereunder was mingled ,,,ith non-required information in violation of Rule 29(a) of said Rules and Regubtions.

PAR. D. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by respondents in that they \\.er8 not invoice(1 as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the F11 Products Labeling Act, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulat.ions promulga.ted thereunder.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced or otherwise falsely and deceptively identified l with respect to the name or names of the flnimal or animals that produced the fur from which said fur products hA.d been manufactured in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling; Act. Em. 7. Cerbin of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that l';sponc1eJlts set forth on invoic.es the statement "continuing guaranty of compliance with the Fur Products Labeling Act, covering the fur products specified herein, has been filed with the Federal Trade Commission" when in truth a.nd in fact no continuing gUfLranty was filed with t.he Federal Trade Commission. , .

BHOOKFIELD HATS, INC., ET AL. 1083 1081 Decision PAR. 8. Cerrain 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 Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that the term "Dyed Broadtail processed Lmub" was not set forth where an election was made to use that term instead of Dyed Lamb in violation of Rule 10 of said Hules and Reglllations.

Paint. 9. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products La,beling Act and the Hules nnd Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Jh' Ohades lV. O'Oonnell for the Commission. Finke /aco6s Hinch by lJr. David Jacobs of ew York, N. for r('spondent IXITlLL DECISIOj\T BY TIAY:iOXD J. LTxCH , IlEARLXG EXA?lIIXEH rhe c.complaint in this proceeding, issued February 13 , 1961 charges the above-named respondents with violation of the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act rder the H.ll1cs and Regulations made pursuant -thereto. On Apri; 17 , 1061, there \yas submitted to the undersigned hearing examiner an agreement be,ween respondents and counsel supporting the complaint proyic1ing for the ent.ry of a consent order. Under' the foregoing agreement, the respondents admit the jurisdici"ional facts alleged in the complaint. The parties agree, among other things, that. the cease and desist order there set forth may be entered without further notice and have the same force and effect as if pntered after a fllJl hearing and the document includes a waiver by the respondents of all rights to challenge or contest the validity of the ordeu issuing in accordance therewith. The agreement further recites that it is for settlement purposes only a.nd does not constitute an admission by the respondents that they have violated the Jaw as a.alleged in the complaint, and that the. complaint may be used in cOJl truillg t.he term3 of the order.

The hearjng examine.r finds that the content of the agreement meets a11 of the requirements of section 3.25 (b) of the Rules of the Commission.

The hearing examiner having considered the agreement and proposed order, anel being of (he opinion that they provide an appropriate basis for settlement and disposition of this proceeding, the agreement is hereby accepted, ancl it is ordered that said a.agreement , 1084 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIO~S Order 58 F.

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 ordcr issued. 1. Respondent Brookfield Hats, Inc. is a corporation 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 1040 Sixth Avenue in the City of New York, State of New York. Respondents Louis Rosc and Ann Rose (erroneously named in the complaint as Anne Rose) control, direct and formulate the acts, practices and policies of the 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, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It i8 ordered That Brookfield Hats, Inc., a corporation and its offcers and Louis Hose and Ann H,ose, individually and as offcers of said corporation and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or t.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, offering lor sale transportation or distribution of fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received 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:

1. Failing to affx labels to fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all of the information required to be disclosed 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 Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled with nonrequired information.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish to purchasers of fur products invoices showing all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail processed Lamb" where an ejection is made to use that term instead of Lamb. MARCAL paper ldILLS , INC. 1085 HJ81 Complaint C. Falsely or deceptively invoicing or otherwise identifying any such product as to the name or na,mes of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which such product was manufactured. D. l\taking statements on invoices or otherwise that a continuing guaranty under the Fur Products Labeling Act is on file with the Federal Trade Commission when such is not the fact. DECISION OF THE CO:\BfISSIO:N AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF CO:\IPLIANCE 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, 19G1, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly: It is o,.dered That 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 in