Durable Fur Company, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF DURABLE FUR COMPANY, IRC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER ETC. , IN REGAJm '1'0 THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDEfu\L Tl DE CO:\I1nSSTON AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELDW ACTS Docket 0-72. Com.plaint, Feb. 1.962-Decision, Fc/). , 1962 Consent order requiring New York City furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failng to show on labels and invoices the true animal nally of fur used jn fur products, to disclose on lauels when fur was artificially colored, and to comply in other respects with labeling and invoicing requirements.

CO:\fPLAINT 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 Tra,dc Comrnissl()n having reason to believe that Durable Fur Company Inc., a corporation, and Joseph Schimmel, Bernard Browner, and Sol Goldstein, individually and as offcers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of such Acts and the Rules and Regulations under the Fur Products Labeling Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof ,vo111d be in the public int.erest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAl'H 1. Respondent Durable Fur Company, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under.r and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of busines at 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, N.

Individual.l respondents tT oscph Schimmel, Bernard Browner and Sol Goldstein are respectively President, Vice President, and Secretary- Treasurer of the corporate respondent. Said individual respondents formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies , DUHABLE FUR CO, ) INC. ) ET AL. 255 254 Complaint of the corporate respondent. Their address is the same as the corporate respondent.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondents have boon and are now engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in the manufacture for introduction into commerce, a.nd 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 has been shipped and received ill commerce, as the ternlS "commerce fur and "fur product" are defil1ed 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 Sectic.n 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Reguhttions 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 contalnecl in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or ot.herwise artificially c01orec1 when such was the fact.

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were n1isbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Hegulations promulgated therolU1der 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 sa, Rules and Regulations.

(b) The term "Persian Lamb" was not set forth in the ll1anner required by law, in violation of Rule 8 of the Rules and Regulations. (c) Infol'mltion required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in violation of Rulewas mingled with non-required information 29 (a) of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondents in that they \Were not invoiced as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the Rules and Regulations promnlga tecl under such Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were invoices pert.aining to such fur products which failed to show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product. 256 FEDERAL 'TRADE COMMISSION DE,(ISIQXS Decision and Order GO F. PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products ,were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they IverB not ilnroicecl in ftccorc1a,nce \\i th the R.ules and H,egnbtions promulgated thereunder in tha, , information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder \vas set forth in nbbl'eyiatecl form in violation of R.ule 4 of said H.ules flnc1 H.cgu1atiollS. PAR. 7. The aforesaid ads and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, ate in violation of the Fur Products Labeling .-\ct and 1,11( Hules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder and const it-ute unfair and c1eceptiYB acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. DECISION .\ Xl) ORDER The Commission having heretofore, determined to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof TIi1.h violation of the FecleralTrade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondents having been served -with !lotice of said determination and with a copy of the complaint thc Commission intended to issue: together ",ith a proposed forul of order; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter xe,cutecI an agrecment containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint contemplated by such agrecmcnt, a statement that thc signing of said agreelnent is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an ac1mis ioll by respondents that the law has been violated as set forth ill such complaint, and ,waivers and provisions as required by the COl1mission s rules; and The Commission, having consiclerecl the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement makes the follo,ying jurisdict.jonal findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent, Durable Fur Company, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by, virtue of the laws of the State of Kew York, TIith its offce and principal place of business located at 333 Seventh i-b-enuc, in t.he city of New York, Stat.e of ew York.

Bespondents .Joseph Schimrne, , Bern,lrd Browner and Sol Goldstein ate offcers of said corporate.ion, and their address is the same as that of said corporate.ion.

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.

, DURABLE FLR CO.) I ) ET AL. 257 254 Dcci;;ioJj and Onler ORDER it is olde)'ed That respondents Durable Fur Company, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and Joseph Schimmel, Bernard Browner and Sol Goldstein, individually and as offcers 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, 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 lutve been made in whole or in part of fur ,which has been shipped find l'cceiyed in commerce as "commerce fur" and "fur product': ate defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. Misbranding fur products by:

1. Failing to affx 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 affxed 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 thereunder, mingled with non-required information.

C. Failing to set forth the term "Persian Lamb" in the marmer required where an election is made to use that term instead of the word "Lamb"

2. 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 Labcling 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.

It is further 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 this order. 258 FEDERAL 'I'TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint 60 F.