Egelberg & Seidman, Inc.

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

In roe Marrer or EGELBERG & SEIDMAN, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER., ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 8354. Complaint, Apr. 14, 1961—Decision, Sept. 15, 1961 Consent order requiring New York City furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by labeling and invoicing artificially colored fur products as “natural” and failing to comply in other respects with labeling Tequirements.

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 Egelberg & Seidman, Inc., a corporation, and Morris Egelberg and Hyman Seidman, 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 the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that. respect as follows:

ParacrarH 1. Respondent Egelberg & Seidman, 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 150 West 28th Street, New York, New York. Morris Egelberg and Hyman Seidman are officers of the said 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.

Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondents have been and are now engaged i 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. Decision 59 F.C.

Par. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded or otherwise falsely and deceptively identified in that. said fur products were labeled to show that the fur contained therein was natural when in fact such fur was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in viola-_ tion of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 4. 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. 5. 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.

Par. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that said fur products were invoiced to show that the 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. 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. Dewitt T. Puckett supporting the the complaint. Respondents, pro se.

Iniri1au Decision By Epwarp Creel, HEartnc Examiner The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents on April 14, 1961, charging them with having violated the Fur Products Labeling Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

On July 28, 1961, there was submitted to the hearing examiner an agreement between respondents and counsel supporting the complaint providing for the entry of a consent order. Under the terms of the agreement, the respondents admit the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint. The parties agree, among other things, that the cease and desist order there set forth may be entered without further notice and have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing and the document 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 EGELBERG & SEIDMAN, INC., ET AL. 497 495 Order admission by the respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint.

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 having considered the agreement and proposed order, and being of the opinion that they provide an appropriate basis for settlement and disposition of this proceeding, the agreement is hereby accepted, and it is ordered that said agreement 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 : 1. Respondent Egelberg & Seidman, Inc., is a New York corporation with its office and principal place of business located at 150 West 28th Street, New York, New York.

Respondents Morris Egelberg and Hyman Seidman are officers of said corporation. They formulate, direct and contro] the policies, acts and practices of the corporate respondent. Their address is the same as that of the 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 Egelberg & Seidman, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Morris Egelberg and Hyman Seidman, individually and as officers of the 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, 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 products” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from :

1. Misbranding fur products by:

A. Representing, directly or by implication, on labels, that the fur in such products is natural, when such is not the fact. B. 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.

693-4 90-—64——-33 Complaint 59 E.T.C.

2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by : A. Representing, directly or by implication, on invoices, that the fur in such products is 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. 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 15th day of September 1961, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly:

It 7s 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.