Todd Brothers Apparel Company

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

In ree MAtrer oF TODD BROTHERS APPAREL COMPANY ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FED- ERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Dockct 8419. Complaint, June 1, 1961—Decision, Oct. 19, 1961 Consent order requiring Cincinnati furriers 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 in the product, the country of origin, and when the fur was dyed; by failing to keep adequate records as a basis for price and value representations made in advertising; and failing in other respects to comply with requirements of the Act. ComMPLAINT 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 Todd Brothers Apparel Company, a corporation, and Samuel P. Todd and Sidney Rosenfeld, 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:

Paracrapy 1. Respondent Todd Brothers Apparel Company is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Ohio with its office and principal place of business located at 31 West Fourth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio. Respondents Samuel P. Todd and Sidney Rosenfeld are officers of the corporate respondent. They control, direct and formulate the acts and practices of the corporate respondent inelnding 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 on Angust. 9, 1952, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction into commerce and in the sale, ad vertising, offering for sale, transportation and distribution, in comm erce, 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”, Complaint 59 F.T.C.

“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. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products with labels which failed :

(a) to show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product;

(b) to disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was dyed ;

(c) to show the country of origin of imported fur used in the fur product.

Par. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that the respondents, on Jabels attached thereto, set. forth the name of an animal other than the name of the animal that. produced the fur, in violation of Section 4(3) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. 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 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 violation 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 in the required sequence, in violation of Rule 30 of said Rules and Regulations.

(d) 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 Jabels 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.

(e) Required item numbers were not. set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. TODD BROTHERS APPAREL CO. ET AL. 869 867 Complaint Par. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced 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. Among such falsely invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products which were not invoiced: (a) to show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product ;

(b) to disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was ilyed ;

(c) to show the country of origin of imported fur used in the fur product.

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 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 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.

Par. 8. Respondents in advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid made claims and representations respecting prices and values of fur products. Said representations were of the type covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act. Respondents in making such claims and representations failed to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations were based in violation of Rule 44(e) of said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 9. 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. Robert W. Lowthian for the Commission. Dinsmore, Shohl, Barrett, Coates & Deupree, by Mr. Joseph C. Dinsmore, Cincinnati, O., for respondents. Decision 59 FTC.

InirtaL Decision py Roserr L. Piper, Hearinc Examiner The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents on June 1, 1961, charging them with having violated the Fur Products Labeling Act, the rules and regulations issued thereunder, and the Federal Trade Commission Act, by misbranding, and falsely invoicing their fur products. Respondents appeared and entered into an agreement, dated July 28, 1961, containing a consent order to cease and desist, disposing of all the issues in this proceeding without further hearings, which agreement has been duly approved by the Director and Assistant Director of the Bureau of Textiles and Furs, and by the Chief, Division of Enforcement of that Bureau. Said agreement has been submitted to the undersigned, heretofore duly designated to act as hearing examiner herein, for his consideration in accordance with § 3.25 of the Rules of Practice of the Commission.

Respondents, pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, have admitted all of the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and agreed that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been made duly in accordance with such allegations. Said agreement further provides that respondents waive all further procedural steps before the hearing examiner or the Commission, including the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law and the right to challenge or contest. the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with such agreement. It has also been agreed that the record herein shall consist solely of the complaint and said agreement, that the agreement shall not become a part of the official record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission; that 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, that. said order to cease and desist shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing and may be altered, modified, or set aside in the manner provided for other orders, and that the complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order.

This proceeding having now come on for final consideration on the complaint and the aforesaid agreement containing the consent order, and it appearing that the order and agreement cover all of the allegations of the complaint and provide for appropriate disposition of this proceeding, the agreement is hereby accepted and ordered filed upon this decision and said agreement becoming part of the Commission's decision pursuant. to §§ 3.21 and 38.25 of the Rules of Practice, and the hearing examiner accordingly makes the following findings, for jurisdictional purposes, and order:

TODD BROTHERS. APPAREL CO..ET AL. 871 867 Decision 1. Respondent Todd Brothers Apparel Company is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Ohio with its office and principal place of business located at. 81 West Fourth Street. Cincinnati, Ohio. Individual respondents Samuel P. Todd and Sidney Rosenfeld are oflicers of the said corporation. They formulate, direct and control the 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 hereinabove named. The complaint states a cause of action against, said respondents under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Federal Trade Commission - Act, and this proceeding is in the interest. of the public. It is ordered, That. Todd Brothers Apparel Company, a corporation and its officers, and Samuel P. Todd and Sidney Rosenfeld, 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 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 product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

I. Misbranding fur products by:

A. Failing to affix Jabels to fur products showing in words and figures plainly Jegible al] 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 the name or names of any animal or animals other than the name or names provided for in Section 4(2) (A) 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 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.

D. Failing to set forth the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the required sequence ; E. Failing to set forth separately on labels affixed to fur products 872 TODD BROTHERS APPAREL CO. ET AL.

Sylabus 59 F.T.C.

composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs the information required 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 ; F. Failing to set forth on labels the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

Il. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing 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 information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form;

C. Failing to set forth information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs. III. Making claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act unless there are maintained by respondents full and: adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, published May 6, 1955, as amended, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 19th day of October 1961, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly :

It 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.