Clay Furs, Inc.

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

IN THE l\tIATTER OF CLA Y FURS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER , ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COl\1l\:IISSlON AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 8806. Complaint, Mar. 1961-Decision, Aug. 4, 1961 Consent order requiring New York City furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by setting forth on invoices the name of an animal other than that producing the particular fur, by failing to set forth tne term "Dyed Mouton processed Lamb" on invoices where required, and by failing in other respects to comply with invoicing and labeling requirements.

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 Clay Furs, Inc. , a corporation, and Max Kramer, George Schneider and l\fax Greenberg, individually and CLAY FURS, INC. , ET AL. 185 184 Complaint 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 1. Clay 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 office and principal place of business located at 224 "Test 30th Street, New York, New York. Max Kramer George Schneider and l\iax Greenberg are officers of the said corporate respondent and control, formulate and direct the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent. Their office and principal place of business is 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 manufacture for 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 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" are defined 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 Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. PAR. 4. 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. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptive invoiced in that respondents set forth on invoices pertaining to fur products the name of an animal other than the name of the animal that produced the fur, in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they g, 186 FEDERAL TRADE cO::\:E\nSSIO~ DECISIONS Decision 59 F.

were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) The term aDyed :Mouton processed Lamb~~ was not set forth where an eleetion was made to use that term instead of Lamb in violation of Rule 9 of said Rules and Regulations. (b) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. . 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.

il1-)'. DelFitt T. Puckett supporting the complaint. Jh'. Charles Goldbe7' of Ne,,' York, N. , for respondents. INITIAL DECISION BY John B. POINDEXTER, I-IEARING EXA)IIKER On March 6, 1961 the Federal Trade Commission issued a complaint charging the above-named respondents ,with misbranding and falsely and deceptively invoicing certain of their fur products in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act.

After issuanee and service of the complaint the respondents; their attorney, and counsel supporting the complaint entered into an agreement for a consent order. The agreement is signed among other persons, by "George R. Schneider . An affidavit has been submitted by George Sehneider, stating that he is the George Schneider named in the complaint and has used and signed his name George Schneider" and "George R. Schneider" interchangeably. The agreement has been approved by the Director and the Acting Assistant Director of the Bureau of Litigation. The agreement disposes of the matters complaine.d about. The pertinent provisions of said agreement are as follows: Respondents admit all jurisdictional facts; the complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order; the order shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing and the said agreement shall not become a part of the official record of the proceeding unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission; the record herein shall consist solely of the complaint and the agreement; respondents waive the requirement that the decision must contain a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; respondents waive further procedural steps before the hearing exami- , CLAY ' FURS, INC. E'l' AL. 187 184 . Order ner and the Commission, and the order may be altered, moc1jfied, or s; re-set aside in the. manner provided by statute for ot11('r ordel of thespondents waive any right to challenge or contest the. validity order entered in accordance with the agreement and the signing said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the la", as alleged in the complaint.

The undersigned' hearing examiner having considerell the agreement and proposed order, hereby accepts such agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings~ and issues the following order: JURISDICTIO~AL FI)i."DlXGS 1. R.respondent Clay Furs, Inc. is a corporation existing and doing business under and by virtue of the lays of the. State of Xew York with its office and principal place of business located at 221 \Yest 30th Street, in the City of New York State of New York. 2. R.respondents l\iax Kramer, George Schneider and =\lax Greenberg, are officers of saiel corporation. They formulate, control and direct t h0 policies, acts and practices of the corporate respondent. Theil' address is the. same as that of the corporate respondent. of the subject 8. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction matter of this proceeding and of the respondents hereinabove named and the proceeding is in the public interest. ORDER is ordered That respondents Clay Furs, Inc., a corporation and its officers, and l\iax Kramer, George Schneider ana l\lax Greenberg, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respond ents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with tlle introduction or manufacture for introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce of fur products, or in connection ,,-ith the sale manufacture for sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution of fur products which have been made in whole in part of. fur which has been shipped and receiv~c1 in commerce as "commerce fur~' and " fur product' are defined in the Fur Pr' oducts Labeling Act do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. l\1isbranding fur products by:

A. Failing to affix labels to fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disc)osed Complaint 59 F.

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

2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Fading to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

B. Setting forth on invoices pertaining to fur products the name or names of any animal or animals other than the name. or names provided for in Section 5(b) (1) (A) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

C. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed l\10uton processed Lamb" where an election is made to use that term instead of Lamb. D. Failing to set forth the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

DECISION OF THE COl\Il\lission AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF CO)IPLL\NCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice the initial decision of the hearjng examiner shall on the 4th clay of August 1961 become the decision of the Commission; and, accordjngJy:

It is o1'dered 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 in