Fur Flyers, Inc.

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

In the MatTrer oF FUR FLYERS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 8300. Complaint, Mar. 3, 1961—Decision, Aug. 17, 1961 Consent order requiring New York City furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to comply with labeling and invoicing requirements.

ComMPLaINtT 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 Fur Flyers, Inc., a corporation, and Ida L. York and Carolyn Sherwin, 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 Decision 59 F.T.C.

the public interest, hereby issues its complaint, stating its charges in that respect as follows:

Par. 1. Respondent Fur Flyers, 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 226 West 29th Street, New York, New York. Respondent Ida L. York and Carolyn Sherwin are officers of the corporate respondent and control, direct and formulate its acts, practices and policies. Their address 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, 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” 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. 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.

Mr. Charles W. O'Connell for the Commission. Mr. Ralph A. Matalon, Matalon & Schachter, New York, N.Y., for respondents.

Iniria, Decision By Herman Tocxer, Heartnc Examiner In a complaint issued March 3, 1961, the respondents, Fur Flyers, Inc., a corporation located at 226 West 29th Street, New York, FUR FLYERS, INC., ET AL. 235 233 Decision New York, and Ida L. York and Carolyn Sherwin, individually and as officers of said corporation, and located at the same address as the said corporate respondent, were charged with violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Fur Products Labeling Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, such alleged violations including both failure to comply with requirements for the labeling of fur products and deceptive invoicing of fur products, all introduced by them into commerce.

After issuance of the complaint, the respondents (with the advice and agreement of their attorney) and counsel supporting the complaint entered into an agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, thus disposing of all the issues involved in this proceeding.

In the said agreement it was expressly provided that the signing thereof was for settlement purposes only and did not constitute an admission by the respondents that they had violated the law as in the complaint alleged.

By the terms of said agreement, the respondents admitted all the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint and agreed that the record herein may be taken as if the Commission had made findings of jurisdictional facts in accordance with the allegations. By said agreement, the respondents expressely waived any further procedural steps before the Hearing Examiner and the Commissioner; the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law; and all rights they may have to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist to be entered in accordance therewith. Respondents further agreed that the order to cease and desist, to be issued in accordance with said agreement, shal] have the same force and effect as if made after a full hearing. It was further provided that said agreement, together with the complaint, shall constitute the entire record herein; that the complaint herein may be used in construing the terms of the order to be issued pursuant to said agreement; and that such order may be altered, modified or set aside in the manner prescribed by the statute for orders of the Commission.

The Hearing Examiner has considered the agreement and the order therein contained, and, it appearing that said agreement and order provide for an appropriate disposition of this proceeding, the same is hereby accepted and shall be filed upon becoming part of Decision 59 F.T.C.

the Commission’s decision in accordance with Sections 3.21 and 3.25 of the Rules of Practice.

Now, in consonance with the terms thereof, the Hearing Examiner finds that the Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents named herein, and that this proceeding is in the interest of the public, and issues the following order:

ORDER It is ordered, That Fur Flyers, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Ida L. York and Carolyn Sherwin, 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, or the manufacture for introduction, into commerce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale, transportation or distribution, in commerce, of fur products, or in connection with the manufacture for sale, sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution of fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which has 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 :

A. Misbranding fur products by failing to affix 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. B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by failing 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.

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 17th day of August 1961, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly: , It is ordered, 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 which they have complied with the order to cease and desist. LIVIGEN LABORATORY SALES CORP. ET AL. 237 Complaint