Rabach & Levine, Inc.

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

In ree Matrer or RABACH & LEVINE, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FED- ERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 83870. Complaint, Apr. 21, 1961—Decision, Sept. 6, 1961 Consent order requiring New York City furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by setting forth on invoices of fur products the name of an animal other than that which produced the fur, and by failing in other respects to comply with 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 Rabach & Levine, Inc., a corporation, and Seymour Rabach, Sol Rabach, and Murray Levine, individually and as officers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have vio- Jated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, and it appearing Complaint 59 F.T.C.

to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issue its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

Paracrapy 1. Respondent Rabach & Levine, 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 208 West 30th Street, New York, New York. Respondents Seymour Rabach, Sol Rabach and Murray Levine are officers of the corporate respondent. They control, formulate and direct the acts and practices of the corporate respondent, including the acts and practices hereinafter set forth. Their address is the same as that of the corporate respondent.

Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act of August 9, 1952, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction and 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 products” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 3. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptiv ely imvoiced 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. 4. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively 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. 5, 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 the following respects: (2) Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in abbreviated form in violation of Rule 4 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. 6. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the RABACH & LEVINE, INC., ET AL. 381 3879 Decision 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, supporting the complaint. Mr, Herman Wiesenthal of Wiesenthal and Wiesenthal, New York, N.Y., for respondents.

Iniriat Decision py Water K. Bennerr, Heartne Examiner The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint on April 21, 1961, charging respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the latter act. It was alleged that respondents falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products by failing to invoice them in the manner required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, by setting forth the names of animals other than the animal which produced the fur and by setting forth in abbreviated form the information required by the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations issued thereunder. On July 8, 1961, counsel supporting the complaint presented to the hearing examiner an agreement dated June 27, 1961, executed by respondents, their counsel and counsel supporting the complaint. The agreement provides for the entry without notice of a cease and desist order which would dispose of this proceeding. Said agreement was duly approved by the Director and Assistant Director of the Bureau of Litigation.

The hearing examiner finds that said agreement includes all of the provisions required by Section 3.25(b) of the Rules of the Commission, that is:

A. An admission by all the respondent parties thereto of jurisdictional facts;

B. Provisions that:

(1) The complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order;

(2) The order shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing;

(3) The 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 ;

(4) The entire record on which any cease and desist. order mav be based shall consist solely of the complaint and the agreement; (5) The order may be altered, modified, or get aside in the manner provided by statute for other orders;

Order 59 F.T.C.

C. Waivers of :

(1) The requirement that the decision must contain a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law.

(2) Further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission.

(3) Any right to challenge or contest the validity of the order entered in accordance with the agreement. In addition the agreement contains the following provision: A statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint. Having considered said agreement including the proposed order, and being of the opinion that it provides an appropriate basis for settlement and disposition of this proceeding; the hearing examiner hereby accepts the agreement but orders that it shall not become a part of the official record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission.

The following jurisdictional findings are made and the following order issued :

JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS 1. Respondent Rabach & Levine, Inc. is a corporation 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 208 West 30th Street, in the City of New York, State of New York. 9. Respondents Seymour Rabach, Sol Rabach, and Murray Levine, are officers of the corporate respondent. Their address is the same as that of the corporate respondent.

3. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents. ORDER It is ordered, That respondents Rabach & Levine, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Seymour Rabach, Sol Rabach and Murray Levine, 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 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 sale, manufacture for 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 or received in commerce, as “commerce,” “fur” and MADAME E ET AL. 383 379 Complaint “fur products” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from falsely and deceptively invoicing fur products by:

1. 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. 2, 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) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 3. 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.

4, Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

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 6th day of September 1961, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly:

/t is ordered, 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 which they have complied with the order to cease and desist. I~ rue Matrrer or MADAME E ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCIS LABELING ACTS Pocket 8888. Complaint, May 5, 1961—Decision, Sept. 6, 1961 Consent order requiring a New York City furrier to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to set forth the term “Secondhand” on invoices where required, and by failing in other respects 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 Madame E, a corporation, and Jacques Kaplan, Decision 59 F.T.C.

individually and as officer 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: Paracrary 1. Respondent Aladame E 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 place of business located at 1207 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York. Respondent Jacques Kaplan, is an officer of said corporation. He controls, formulates and directs the acts and practices of the corporate respondent, including the acts and practices hereinafter referred to. His address is the same as that. of the corporate respondent. Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act of 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 the terms “commerce”, “fur” and “fur products” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 8. 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 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

(ob) 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.

(c) 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 violation of Rule 29(b) of said Rules and Regulations.

MADAME E ET AL. 385 383 Decision (d) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth in the required sequence, in violation of Rule 30 of said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 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 and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

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 the following respects: (a) Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth separately on invoices with respect to the disclosure “Secondhand”, in violation of Rule 28 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth separately on invoices with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs, in violation of Rule 86 of said Rules and Regulations.

Pan. 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.

Mr. Arthur Wolter, J?., supporting the complaint. Respondents, pro se.

InirtaL Decision py Leon R. Gross, Heartne Examiner On May 5, 1961, the Federal Trade Commission issued a complaint against respondents Madame E, a corporation, and Jacques Kaplan, individually and as officer of said corporation, in which they were charged with violating the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promul- 695-490-—6-4 26 Decision 59 F.T.C.

gated thereunder by falsely and deceptively labeling and invoicing fur products sold by respondents in interstate commerce. .A true and correct copy of the complaint was served upon respondents as required by law. Thereafter respondents agreed to dispose of this proceeding without a formal hearing pursuant to the terms of an agreement dated June 20, 1961, containing consent order to cease and desist. Respondent Jacques Kaplan signed the agreement as Jacques M. Kaplan, as attested to by an affidavit attached to and made a part of the agreement. The agreement was submitted to the undersigned hearing examiner on July 5, 1961, in accordance with § 3.25 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings. The agreement purports to dispose of this proceeding as to the respondents and contains the form of a consent cease and desist order which the parties have represented is dispositive of the issues involved in this proceeding. The agreement has been signed by the corporate respondent by its president, by counsel supporting the complaint, and has been approved by the Assistant Director and the Director of the Bureau of Litigation of the Federal Trade Commission. In said agreement respondents admit all of the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint and agree that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been made in accordance with such allegations. In the agreement the respondents waive: (a) any further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission; (b) the making of findings of fact or conclusions of Jaw; and (ec) all rights respondents may have to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with the agreement. The parties further agree, in said agreement, that the record on which the initial decision and the decision of the Commission shall be based shall consist solely of the complaint and the agreement; that the agreement shall not become a part of the record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Federal Trade Commission; that the order to cease and desist entered in this proceeding by the Commission may be entered without further notice to respondents, and when so entered such order will have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing. Said order may be altered, modified or set aside in the manner provided for other orders. The complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order.

The parties have covenanted that the said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint. This proceeding having now come on for final consideration on the complaint and the aforesaid agreement of June 20, 1961, containing consent order, and it appearing that the order which is approved in MADAME E ET AL, 387 S&S Findings and by said agreement disposes of all the issues presented by the complaint as to all of the parties involved, said agreement is hereby accepted and approved as complying with §§ 3.21 and 3.25 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings. The undersigned hearing examiner, having considered the agreement and proposed order and being of the opinion that the acceptance thereof will be in the public interest, makes the following findings and issues the following order:

FINDINGS 1. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction over the parties ana the subject matter of this proceeding; and this proceeding is in the pub:i« interest ;

2, Respondent Madame FE is a corporation 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 1207 Lexington Avenue, in the City of New York, State of New York. 8. Individual respondent Jacques Kaplan is an officer of said ccrporation. His address is the same as that of the corporate respondent. 4. Respondent is engaged in commerce as “commerce” is defined in the pertinent statutes which are invoked by the complaint filed herein. Now, therefore, t is ordered, That Madame E, a corporation, and its officers, and Jaeques Kaplan, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and respondents’ 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 conunerce 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 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 under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promuleated thereunder required information ; (1) In abbreviated form;

(2) Mingled with non-required information; (3) In handwriting;

Complaint 59 F.T.C.

(4) Not in the required sequence.

9. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products show- ‘ing 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 under Section 5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder required information :

(1) In abbreviated form ;

(2) Incompletely and not separately with respect. to the required disclosure “Second hand.”

(3) Incompletely with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COAMIPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 8.21 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 6th day of September 1961, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly:

Li is ordered, That the above-named respondents 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.