George Gorbatenko trading as George Gorbatenko

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

in which they have complied with this order, In THe MatTTEerR oF GEORGE GORBATENKO TRADING AS GEORGE GORBATENKO CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION Or THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-266. Complaint, Oct. 26, 1962—Decision, Oct. 26, 1962 Consent order requiring a San Francisco furrier to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to show on fur products labels the name of the manufacturer, etc., and the country of origin of.imported furs, and to use the term “natural” where required; failing to disclose on invoices the true animal name of furs and when fur was dyed, and to set forth the terms “Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb” and “natural” as provided; and failing in other respects to comply with labeling and invoicing requirements. CompPLAINT 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 George Gorbatenko, an individual trading as George Gorbatenko, 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 in that respect as follows:

Paracrapy 1. Respondent George Gorbatenko is an individual trading as George Gorbatenko with his office and principal place of business located at 140 Geary Street, San Francisco, Calif. Respondent is engaged in the wholesale and retail sale and distribution of fur products.

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 sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution, in commerce, of fur products; and has sold, advertised, offered GEORGE GORBATENKO 1115 1114 Complaint 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; and has 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 respondent, as the terms “commerce”, “fur” and “fur product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Par. 3. Respondent in introducing, selling, advertising, offering for sale and processing fur products which have been shipped and received in commerce, has misbranded fur products by substituting thereon labels which did not conform to the requirements of Section 4 _of the Fur Products Labeling Act, in violation of Section 3(e) of said 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 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, introduced them into commerce, sold them in commerce, advertised or offered them for sale, in commerce, or transported or distributed them in commerce. 2. To show the country of origin of imported furs used in the fur product.

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) The term “natural” was not used to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(g) 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 completely set out on one side of the labels, in violation of Rule 29(a) of said Rules and Regulations. (d) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Decision and Order 61 F.T.C.

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.

(e) 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.

(f) 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 labels 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. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondent 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:

(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 bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored when such was the fact.

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) The term “Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb” was not set forth in the manner required, in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) The term “natural” was not used to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(g) of said Rules and Regulations. 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 GEORGE GORBATENKO 1117 1114 Decision and Order 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 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 admission by respondent that the law has been violated as set forth in such 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, George Gorbatenko, is an individual trading as George Gorbatenko with his office and principal place of business located at 140 Geary Street, San Francisco, Calif. 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 is ordered, That George Gorbatenko, an individual trading as George Gorbatenko or under any other name, and respondent’s 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 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 commerce; 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 product a substitute label has been placed by 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 substitute labels on fur products for labels affixed to such fur products pursuant to Section 4 of the Fur Products Labeling Act and which substitute labels do not conform to the requirements of Section 4 of the said Act. | bo Decision and Order 61 F.T.C.

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 in handwriting. D. Failing to set forth all the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder on one side of such labels.

E. Failing to set forth information required under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the sequence required by Rule 80 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

F. Failing to set forth separately on labels attached to fur products 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.

G. Failing to use the term “natural” to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

. 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 the term “Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb” in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the term “Dyed Lamb”. D. Failing to use the term “natural” to describe a fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

EXCEL PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL. 1119 Wit Complaint It is 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.