David Benioff Brothers, Inc.

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

IN THE ~IATTER OF DAVID BENIOFF BROTHERS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOh~TION OF THE FEDER..-\L TRADE COl\HnSSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-204. Complaint, Atlg. 14, 1962-Decision, Auu. 14, 1962 Consent order requiring San Francisco furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by substituting non-conforming labels for those affixed to fur products by manufacturers or distributors; by labels and invoices which showed the United States to be the country of origin of imported furs; by failing to disclose on labels when furs were artificially colored or fur products were composed of cheap or waste fur; failing to show on labels and invoices the country of origin of imported furs; failing to show on invoices the true animal name of fur and to disclose when furs were natural; and failing in other respects to comply with labeling requirements. COl\IPLAINT 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 CoIYnnission, having reason to believe that David Benioff Brothers, Inc., a corporation, and David Benioff Robert Benioff, Robert Taylor, and John Everett, DAVID BENIOFF BROTHERS, INC. , ET AL. 409 408 Complaint individually and as officers of the 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 cOlnplaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent David Benioff Brothers, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business und~r and by virtue of the laws of the State of California.

Individual respondents David Benioff, Robert Benioff, Robert Taylor, and John Everett are officers of the said corporate respondent and control, direct and formulate the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent.

Respondents are wholesalers of fur products and have their office and principal place of business at 140 Geary Street, San Francisco Calif.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products La.beling Act on August 9, 1952, and more especially since 1953, respondents have been a.nd are now engaged in the introduction into commerce and in the sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in comnlerce, and in the transportation and distribution, in commerce, 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 has been shipped and received in commerce; and have sold, advertised offered for sale and processed fur products which have been shipped and received in commerce and upon which fur products substitute labels have been placed by respondents, as the terms "commerce "fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 3. Respondents, in selling, advertising, offering for sale and processing fur products which have been shipped and received in CO111merce, misbranded said fur products by substituting for the labels affixed to such fur products, by manufacturers or distributors pursuant to Section 4 of the Fur Products Labeling Act, labels which did not conform to the requirements of said Section 4, in violation of Section 3 ( e) of said Act.

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded or otherwise falsely or deceptively labeled in that labels affixed to the said fur products misrepresented the country of origin of the furs contained in the said fur products, in violation of Section 4 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Complaint 61 F.

i\.among such misbranded fur products but not limited thereto were fur products with labels which showed the country of origin of the furs contained in the fur products to be the lJnited States when in truth and in fact the furs contained in the fur products were imported. m. 5. Certain of said fur products \,ere 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 \,ere fur products with labels which failed:

1. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed or other,ise artificially colored, when such \vas the fact.

2. To show the country of origin of the imported furs contained in fur products.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordnnce with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

1. Labels affixed to fur products failed to show that the fur products \,ere composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails bellies, sides, flanks, gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap pieces or waste fur when such was the fact, in violation of Rule 20 0'f said Rules and Regulations.

2. Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder \vns not completely set out on one side of labels, in violation of Rule 29 (a) of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 7. 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 promulgated under such Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products but not limited thereto, were invoices pertaining to such fur products ,which failed:

1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product. 2. To show the country of origin of the imported furs contained in fur products.

m. 8. Certain of said fur products ,,-ere 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 said invoices failed to contain a dis- DAVID BENIOFF BROTHERS , INC. , ET AL. 411 408 Decision and Order closure that the fur products "-ere natural ,yhen such ,yas the fact, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 9. Certain of said fur products 'verb falsely and deceptively invoiced in that invoices pertaining to the. said fur products misrepresented qle country of origin of the furs contained in the said fur products, in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products La beling Act.. Among such falsely and deceptively invoieed fur products, but not limited thereto, were invoices which sho,ved the country of origin of the furs contained in the fur products to be the United States when in truth and in fact the furs contained in the fur products ,were imported.

PAR. 10. 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. nets and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. DECISION AXD ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof "ith violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondents having been served with 110tiee of saiel determination and ,with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together ",ith a proposed form of order; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondents 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 admission by respondents that the la,y 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",ing jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Da yid Benioff Brothers, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, ,with its office and principal place of business located at 140 Geary Street, San Francisco, Calif. Decision and Order 61 F.

Respondents David Benioff, Robert Benioff, Robert Taylor, and J oh11 Everett are officers of said corporation and their address is the same as that of said corporation.

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 I t is ordel' That respondents David Benioff Brothers, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and David Benioff, R,robert Benioff, Robert Taylor, and John Everett, 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 COIlllllerce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale, in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce of any fur product; or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution, of any fur product which is made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in COlmnerce; or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale or processing of any fur product which has been shipped and received in commerce, and upon which fur products a substitute label has been placed by the respondents, as "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. 1vIisbranding fur products by:

A. ~1isrepresenting the country of origin of the furs contained in fur products.

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. Substituting labels for labels affixed to such fur products pursuant to Section 4 of the Fur Products Labeling Act and which substitute labels do not conforn1 to the requirements of Section 4 of said Act.

D. Failing to disclose that fur products are composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, sides flanks, gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap pieces or waste fur when such is the fact.

E. Failing to set forth all the information required under Se.ction 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder on one side of such labels.

WALTER HOLDING CO. 413 408 Complaint 2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. ~lisrepresenting the country of origin of the im.ported furs contained in fur products.

B. 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. disclose that suchC. Failing to is the fur productsfact.are natural, when It -28 .hll'the'l' onle1' 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 bl ,which they have complied with this order.