Wiesenthal & Schneiderman, Inc.

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

In tue Marrer oF WIESENTHAL & SCHNEIDERMAN, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FED- ERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-276. Complaint, Nov. 80, 1962—Decision, Nov. 30, 1962 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturing furrier to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing, on invoices, to show the names of animals producing furs, to describe as “natural” furs which were not artificially colored, and to comply in other respects with invoicing requirements ; and furnishing false guaranties by falsely representing that they had a continuing guaranty on file with the Commission. 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 Wiesenthal & Schneiderman, Inc., a corporation, and Joseph Schneiderman, and Jerry Wiesenthal, 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 complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

Paracraru 1. Respondent Wiesenthal & Schneiderman, 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 245 West 29th Street, New York, N.Y. Individual respondents Joseph Schneiderman and Jerry Wiesenthat are officers of the said corporate respondent and control, direct and formulate the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent. Their office and principal place of business is the same as that of the said corporate respondent, Respondents are manufacturers of 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 manufacture for 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 manufactured for sale, sold, ad- Decision and Order 61 F.T.C.

vertised, offered 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 as the terms “commerce”, “fur” and “fur product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by respondents in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products covered by invoices which failed to show the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur.

Par. 4. 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) Fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored were not described as natural, in violation of Rule 19(g) of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 5. Respondents furnished false guaranties under Section 10(b) of the Fur Products Labeling Act with respect to certain of their fur products by falsely representing in writing that they had a continuing guaranty on file with the Federal Trade Commission when respondents in furnishing such guaranties had reason to believe that the fur products so falsely guaranteed would be introduced, sold, transported and distributed in commerce, in violation of Rule 48(c) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Section 10(b) of said Act. Par. 6. 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 in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Decision 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 WIESENTHAL & SCHNEIDERMAN, INC., ET AL. 1311 1809 Decision and Order 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 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 Wiesenthal & Schneiderman, 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 245 West 29th Street, New York. N.Y. Respondents Joseph Schneiderman and Jerry Wiesenthal 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 It is ordered, That Wiesenthal & Schneiderman, Inc., a corporation and its officers, and Joseph Schneiderman and Jerry Wiesenthal, individually and as officers of the said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, manufacture for introduction, 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 have been 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. 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 13812 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint 61 F.T.C.

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

2, Furnishing a false guaranty that any fur product is not misbranded, or falsely invoiced, or advertised, when there is reason to believe that such fur product may be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in commerce.

It ts 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.