Morris Hessel, Inc.

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

In Troe Marrter or MORRIS HESSEL, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-262. Complaint, Oct, 31, 1962—Decision, Oct. 31, 1962 Consent order requiring New York City furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to disclose on invoices that furs were artificially colored, and in invoicing and advertising that they were natural, when such was the case; advertising prices of fur products falsely as reduced; failing to label and invoice fur products with the required information; and failing to keep adequate records as a basis for pricing claims. Complaint 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 Morris Hessel, Inc., a corporation, and Morris Hessel, individually and as an officer 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:

ParacrarH 1. Respondent Morris Hessel, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York with its office and principal place of business located at 231 West 29th Street, New York, N.Y. Individual respondent Morris Hessel is president of the said corporate respondent and controls, directs and formulates the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent. His office and principal place of business is the same as that of the said corporate respondent.

The corporate respondent and the individual respondent retail fur products.

Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondents have been and are 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 have sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have MORRIS HESSEL, INC., ET AL. 1125 1124 Complaint been made in whole or in part of fur which had been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms “commerce”, “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 that were not labeled with any of the information required under the said Act and said Rules and Regulations. Par. 4. 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 inasmuch as required item numbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 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 promulgated under said Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products were fur products covered by invoices which failed to disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

Par. 6. 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) Failure to describe fur products as natural when such fur products were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(g) of said Rules and Regulations. (b) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations, Par. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely or deceptively advertised in that said fur products were not advertised as required under the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Said advertisements were intended to aid, promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of said fur products. Included in the advertisements as aforesaid, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the @{28—-122—65——_72 Decision and Order 61 FTC.

New York Times, a newspaper published in the city of New York, State of New York.

Among such false and deceptive advertisements of fur products, but not limited thereto, were advertisements wherein respondents represented through such statements as “Every Coat valued at $3000 to $4000 Full Cut, Fully Let Out Mink. Coats Now From $1150” that prices of fur products were reduced from the usual and customary retail prices of such fur products in the trade area or areas where the statement was made when such was not the fact, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44(a) of said ‘Rules and Regulations.

Par. 8. In advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid respondents ‘failed to describe fur products as natural when such fur products were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(g) of said Rules and Regulations. Par.9. In advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid respondents made claims and representations respecting prices and values of fur products. Said representations were 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. 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. 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 acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. DrEcIsION AND ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined: to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondents 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 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 MORRIS HESSEL, INC., ET AL. 1127 1124 Decision and Order settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents 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 Morris Hessel, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York with its office and principal place of business located at 231 West. 29th Street, New York, N.Y.

Respondent Morris Hessel is president of said corporation and his address ts 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 It is ordered, That respondents Morris Hessel, Inc., a corporation and its officers, and Morris Hessel, individually and as an officer 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 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, 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. 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.

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

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 Labeling Act. Syllabus 61 F.T.C..

B. Failing to describe fur products as natural when such: fur products are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

C. Failing to set forth the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

3. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement, or notice which is intended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale, of fur products and which: .

A. Misrepresents directly or by implication that prices of fur products are reduced from the usual and customary retail prices of such fur products in the trade area or trade areas where the statement is made.

B. Misrepresents in any manner the savings available to: purchasers of respondents’ fur products.

C. Fails to describe fur products as natural when such fur products are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored. , 4, 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.

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.