John W. Thomas and Company

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

In THe Marrer oF JOHN W. THOMAS AND COMPANY CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 8332. Complaint, Mar. 16, 1961—Decision, Aug. 22, 1961 Consent order requiring a Minneapolis furrier to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to comply with labeling and invoicing 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 John W. Thomas and Company, a corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has 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:

Complaint 59 F.T.C.

Paracrary 1. Respondent John W. Thomas and Company is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Minnesota with its office and principal place of business located at Eighth and Nicollet. Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondent has been and is 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 has 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 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 mingled with non-required information, in violation of Rule 29(a) of said Rules and Regulations. (b) 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 viclation of Rule 29(b) 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 not set forth separately on labels with respect. to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs, in violation of Rule 36 of said Rules and Regulations.

(d) Required item numbers were not set forth on labels in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Pan. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by respondent in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. and in the manner JOHN W. THOMAS AND CO. ~ 263 261 Decision and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereu n d er.

Par. 6. Certain 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 information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and RegulJations promulgated thereunder was set forth in abbreviated form in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 7. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent, 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, William A. Somers supporting the complaint. Mr. Stanley D. Smith, of Minneapolis, Minn., for respondent. Initia, Decision sy Jonnw Lewis, Heartnc Examiner The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondent on March 16, 1961, charging it with having violated the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Ruies and Regulations issued thereunder, and the Federal Trade Commission <Act, through the misbranding of certain fur products and the false and deceptive invoicing thereof. After being served with said complaint, respondent appeared by counsel and subsequently entered into an agreement, dated June 20, 1961, containing a consent order to cease and desist purporting to dispose of all this proceeding as to all parties. Said agreement, which has been signed by respondent, by counsel for said respondent, and by counsel supporting the complaint, and approved by the Acting Director and Assistant Director of the Commission’s Bureau of Litigation, has been submitted to the above-named hearing examiner for his consideration, in accordance with Section 3.25 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings.

Respondent, pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, has admitted all the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and agreed that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had ment further provides that respondent waives any further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the commission, the ural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission, the making of findings of fact or conclusions of Jaw and all of the rights Order 59 F.T.C.

it may have to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with such agreement. Jt has been agreed that the order to cease and desist issued in accordance with said agreement shal] have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing and that the complaint may be used in construing the terms of said order. It has also been agreed that the record herein shal! consist solely of the complaint and said agreement, and that said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent that it has violated the law as alleged in the complaint.

This proceeding having now come on for final consideration on the complaint and the aforesaid agreement. containing consent order, and it appearing that the order provided for in said agreement covers al] the allegations of the complaint and provides for an appropriate disposition of this proceeding as to al] parties, said agreement is hereby accepted and is ordered filed wpon this decision’s becoming the decision of the Commission pursuant to Sections 3.21 and 3.25 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings, and the hearing examiner, accordingly, makes the following jurisdictional findings and order: 1. Respondent John W. Thomas and Company is a corporation existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Minnesota, with its office and principal place of business located at Eight and Nicollet Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 9. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent hereinabove named. The complaint states a cause of action against said respondent under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, and this proceeding is in the interest of the public. ORDER It is ordered, That John W. Thomas and Company, a corporation, and its officers, and respondent’s 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 fur products, or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation, or distribution of fur products which are made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as “commerce,” “fur” and “fur JOHN W. THOMAS AND CO. 265 261 Decision product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Misbranding fur products by:

A. 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 Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

B. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products: 1. Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled with non-required information. 2. Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting.

C. Failing to set forth the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

D. Failing to set forth separately on labels attached to fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs the information required to be disclosed under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to the fur comprising each section.

2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing in words and figures plainly Jegible 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 information required under Section 5(b) (1) . of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 8.21 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 22d day of August 1961, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly:

It ts ordered, That the respondent herein shall within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with the order to cease and desist. Complaint 59 F.T.C.

In THe MarTrTer or