John C. Minudri trading as Furs by Minudri

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

and form in '."which they have complied with this order. Ix THE l\iatter OF TOUX C. :MINUDRI TRADING AS FURS BY MINUDRI COXSEXT onder, ETC., IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VlOLATlOX OF THE FEDERAL TRADE CQ:JL:VIIssro::-r AND THE .F"GH PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-9.9. Compla,int, Mar. 1962-Decision, Mar. 23. 1962 Consent order requiring a San Francisco furrier to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by substituting non-conforming labels for those originally affxed to fur products, and failng to keep required records; failng, on labels and invoices, to show the true animal name of fm' s, the 719-603--64---- Complaint GO F.

country of origin of imported furs, and the name of the manufactmer. etc., to disclose when fur was artificially colored, and to set forth the terIl Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" as required; failng, on im' oices. to disclose when fur products were composed of cl1Cap or waste fur and \yIJCIl they were natural; and failng in other respects to comply with labeling and invoicing requirements.

COl\IPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and by vjrtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that J ahn C. Iinudri, an individual trading as Furs by :Minudri, 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 proceel1ing by it in respect thereof ",yould be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGR.APH 1. Respondent John C. )finudri is an individual trading as Furs by l\linudri, with his principal offce and place of lmsine located at 93 IV est Portal Street, San Francisco, Calif. PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on AU Tust 9, 1952, respondent has been and is now engaged in the int.production 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 sold, advertised, ofierecl for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur ",which had been shipped ancll'eceived in commerce; and has sold, advertised, offered for sale or processed fur products which have been shipped and received in commerce and upon which fur products substitute labels 1m"e been placed by the respondent, as the terms "commerce, "fur" and "fur product ' are defmed in the Fur Procucts Labeling Act.

PAR. 3. Respondent in selling, advertising, offering for sale and processing fur products which have been shipped and receiv;ed in commerce has misbranded such fur products, by substitut.ing\ thereon labels which did not conform to the require,ments of Section 4 of the Fur Products Labeling Act fer the labels affxed to said fur products by the manufa.cturer or distributor pursuant to Section 4 of said Act in violation of Section 3 (e) of said Act. PAll. 4. Respondent, in substituting labels as provided for, in Section 3 (e) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, has failed to keep and FURS, BY MINUDRI 597 595 Complaint preserve the records required, in violation of such Section and Rule 41 of the Rules lind Regulations promulgated under the said Act. PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely and deccptively identified with respect to the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which said fur product had been manufactured, in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products \,ere misbmnded in that they were falsely and deceptively hLbeled or otherwise identified with respect to the country of origin of the furs contained in the fur products in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 7. Certain of said fnr products were misbmndcd in that they wero not labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner ,md 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 products. 2. To disclose tlmt the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, 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 products for introduction into commerce, iutroduced them into comnlerce, sold them in commerce, advertised or offered them for sale, in commerce, or transported or distributed them in commerce. 4. To show the country of origin of the imported fUTs used in the fur products.

PAR. 8. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in viola60n of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Reby1lations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

(a) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and t.he Hules and Regulations promulgated thereunder \YflS set forth in abbreviated form, in vio1ntion of Rule 4 of said Rules and Hegulations.

(b) The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) Information rerJ11iredunder Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated t.hereunder Complaint GO E' was Ulingled with non-required information, in, violation 01 Rule 29 (a) of said Rules and Regulations.

(el) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations was not set forth in the required sequence, in violation of Rule 30 of said Rules and Regulations.

(e) Required item numbers ,were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regnlations. m. D. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by t.he respondent in that they lrere not invoiced as required by Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations prollulgfltecl under such Act. Among sneh falsely and decepti \"ely in ,"oiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were invoices pCliaining to such fur products which failed:

1. To show the true anlmal name of the fur used in the fur products. 2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored ,vhen such was the fact. 3. To show the name and address of the person or persons issuing such invoices.

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

PAIL 10. Certain of said fur products ",yore falsely and deceptively invoiced in "violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance ,with the Hl1los and HegulaJiolls promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) Information required under Section 5(1,) (1) of the Fur Prodacts Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder ",yas set forth in abhreviated form, in yiolat.ion of Rule 4 of the said Rules and Regulat.ions.

(b) The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required, in violation of R.llie 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) The disclosure that fur products were composed in whole or substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, sides, flanks, gills, cars, throats heads, scrap pieces or ,yaste fur \Vas not set forth on invoices where required, in violation of Uule 20 of the sold Hules and Regulations. (d) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of the said Rules and Regulations. (e) Fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored ,,"ere not described as natural. FURS BY MI)JUDRI 599 595 Decision and Order PAR. 11. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules tnd Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. DECISIQX 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 ,,,ith notice of said determination and with it copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together with it proposed fonn of order; and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondent of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to issue herein, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an tdmission by respondent that the In.w has been violated as set forth in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission rules; and The Commission having considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement, makes the follo,ving jurisdictional findings, a.nd enters the following order:

1. Respondent John C. :Minul1ri, is an individual trading as Furs hy Minudri with his principlel offce and place of business located at 93 ,Vest Portal Street, in the city of San Francisco, State of California.

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.

OItDEH It is ordered That respondent John C. Minudri, individually and trading as Furs by JIinudri or under any other trade name, and respondent' s representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce, 01' the sale, fl,advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce, of any fur product; or in connection ",'ith the sale, a,chertising, offering for sale 111transportation, or distribution, of any fur product which is made whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in com- , 600 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIOXS Deciffon and Order 60 F.

merce; 01' in conncetion with the sale, advertising, offering for sale or processing of any fur product which has been shipped and received in commerce 'Rud upon which fur product a substitute label has been placed by the respondent, as "commerce fur" and "fur product:' are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. :Misbranding fur products by:

A. Placing thereon substitute labels for labels affxed to such fur products pursuant to Section 4 of the Fur Products Labeling Act and which substitute labels do not conform to t.he requirements of Section 4 of the said act.

B. Falsely and deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying such products as to the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which such products were manufactured. C. Falsely and deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying such products as to the country of origin of the furs contained in such products.

D. FRiling to affx labels to fur products showing in words "nd figures plainly legible a11 of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products LabelingAct.

E. 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 Regnlations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

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

F. Failing to set forth the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fnr Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in the required sequence. G. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Broa.dtail-processed Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the term "Dyed Lamb"

II. Failing to set forth on labels the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

2. Falsely or c1deceptively i1l', oicing fur products by: A. Fa.filing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products sho,ying in words and figures plidnly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each ofthe subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) ofthe Fur Products Labeling \.ct.

, j,)(;? LINCOLX LUGGAGE CO. , INC. , ET AL. 601 505 Complaint 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 the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of "Dyed Lamb"

D. Failing to disclose that fur products are composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, sides, flanks, gills, ears throa.ts, heads, scrap pieces or waste fur. E. Failing to set forth the item number or lnark assigned to a fur product.

F. Failing to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, as natural. 3. Failing to keep and preserve the records required by the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder when making the substitution of labels on fur products as provided for in Section 3 (e) of the said Act. It is tw.ther' ordered Tlmt 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 fmd form in which he has complied with this order.