Murray Lubell, Inc.

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

In the Marrer or * MURRAY LUBELL, 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 8380. Complaint, May 2, 1961—Decision, Sept. 14, 1901 Consent order requiring New York City furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by invoicing fur products falsely to show that the fur MURRAY LUBELL, INC., ET AL. 479 478 Complaint contained therein was natural when, in fact, it was artifically colored, using the term “blended” to describe pointing, bleaching, dyeing or tip-dyeing, and failing to conform in other respects to invoicing requirements, and by furnishing false guaranties that their products were not misbranded, falsely invoiced, or falsely advertised.

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 Murray Lubell, Inc., a corporation, and Murray Lubell and Harry Weiner, 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 & 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. Murray Lubell, Inc. is a corporation organized, existing and doing busines under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its office and principal place of business located at 330 Seventh Avenue, New York 1, New York. Murray Lubell and Harry Weiner are officers of the said corporation and control, direct and formulate 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. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that they were not invoiced as required under the provisions of Section 5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Pan. 4. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that said fur products were invoiced to show that the Decision 59 F.T.C.

fur contained therein was natural, when in fact such fur was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, 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 that the term “blended” was used as part of the information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe the pointing, bleaching, dyeing or tip-dyeing of furs in violation of Rule 19(e) of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 6. The respondents furnished false guarantees that certain of their fur products were not misbranded, falsely invoiced or falsely adyertised when respondents, in furnishing such guarantees, had reason to believe the fur products so falsely guaranteed would be introduced, sold, transported or distributed, in commerce, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

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 constituted unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal] Trade Commission Act.

Mr. Michael P. Hughes for the Commission.

Respondents, pro se.

IniriaL Decision By Warrer R. Jonnson, Hearinc Examiner In the complaint dated May 2, 1961, the respondents are charged with violating the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

On July 10, 1961, the respondents entered into an agreement with counsel in support of the complaint for a consent order. Under the foregoing agreement, the respondents admit the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint. The parties agree, among other things, that. the cease and clesist order there set forth may be entered without further notice and have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing. The agreement includes a waiver by the respondents of all rights to challenge or contest the validity of the order issuing in accordance therewith. The agreement further recites that it 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.

MURRAY LUBELL, INC., ET AL. 481 478 Order The hearing examiner finds that the content of the agreement meets all of the requirements of Section 3.25(b) of the Rules of the Commission.

The hearing examiner being of the opinion that the agreement and the proposed order provide an appropriate basis for disposition of this proceeding as to all of the parties, the agreement. is hereby accepted and it is ordered that the agreement. shall not become a part of the official record of the proceeding unless and unti] it becomes a. part of the decision of the Commission. The following jurisdictional findings are made and the following order issued. 1. Respondent Murray Lubell, 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 330 Seventh Avenue, in the City of New York, State of New York.

Individual respondents Murray Lubell and Harry Weiner are officers of the corporate respondent, and control, direct and formulate 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.

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 is ordered, That Murray Lubell, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Murray Lubell and Harry Weiner, 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, 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 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: 1. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Representing directly or by implication on invoices that furs or fur products are natural when such is not the fact. B. 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. $2 698-490—64 Complaint 59 F.T.C.

C. Using the term “blended” to describe the pointing, bleaching, dyeing or tip-dyeing of furs.

2. Furnishing a false guarantee that any fur or fur product is. not misbranded, falsely invoiced or falsely advertised when the respondents have reason to believe that such fur or fur product may be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in commerce. 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 14th day of September 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.