Meyer Siegel

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

In the Marrer or MEYER SIEGEL TRADING AS MAX SIEGEL & SON CONSENT ORDER, ETC., ‘IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-6. Complaint, Oct. 17, 1961—Decision, Oct. 17, 1961 Consent order requiring a Chicago gurrier to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing, in labeling and invoicing fur products, to show the true animal name of the fur, the country of origin of imported furs, and when fur was dyed; and to disclose, in labeling, the name of the manufacturer or seller of fur products; and by failing in other respects to comply with labeling and invoicing requirements. ComPuaInt 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 Meyer Siegel, an individual trading as Max Siegel & Son, 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:

Paracrapu 1. Meyer Siegel is an individual trading as Max Siegel & Son with his office and principal place of business located at 2687 North Milwaukee Avenue, Chicago, Ilinois. 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 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 has 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 misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely and deceptively identified with respect to the name or names of the animal or Complaint 59 F.T.C.

animals that produced the fur from which said fur products had been manufactured, in violation 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. Among such misbranded fur products but not. limited thereto were fur products with labels which failed:

1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product. 2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was dyed, when such was the fact, 3. To show the name or other identification issued and registered by the Commission of one or more of the persons who manufactured such fur product for introduction into commerce, introduced it into commerce, sold it in commerce, advertised or offered it for sale in commerce, or transported or distributed it. in commerce. 4. To show the country of origin of the imported furs used in the fur products.

Par. 5. 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 set forth in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 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 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.

Par. 6. 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.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products but not limited thereto, were invoices pertaining to fur products which failed: MAX SIEGEL & SON 865 863 Order 1, To show the true animal] name of the fur used in the fur product. 2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was dyed when such was the fact.

3. To show the country of origin of the imported furs used in the fur products.

Par. 7. 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 required item numbers were not: set. forth on invoices in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 8. 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.

DECISION AND ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondent. named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondent having been served with notice of said determination and with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement. containing a. consent order, an admission by the respoundent of all the jurisdictional facts set. forth in the complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement. purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent that the law has been violated as set forth in the complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission’s rules; and The Commission, having considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Meyer Siegel is an individual trading as Max Siegel & Son, with his office and principal place of business located at. 2637 North Milwaukee Avenue, Chicago, Mlinois. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It 7s ordered, That Meyer Siegel, an individual trading as Max Siegel & Son or under any other trade name, and respondent's representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate 6938—-490—G4--—-56 866 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ‘DECISIONS Order 59 E.T.C.

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:

I. Misbranding fur products by:

A. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying any such product as to the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which such product was manufactured. 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.

C. 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 in abbreviated form.

2. Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled with non-required information.

8. Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting.

II. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Faiting to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to bs disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

B. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned toa fur product.

Lt ts further ordered, That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon him of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he has complied with this order. TODD BROTHERS APPAREL. CO. ET AL, 867 Complaint