Berman Furs & Sportswear, Inc.

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

In THE Matrer oF BERMAN FURS & SPORTSWEAR, INCG., ET AL.

‘CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-285. Complaint, Dec. 19, 1962—Decision, Dec. 19, 1962 ‘Consent order requiring a Rochester, N.Y., furrier to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by removing required labels from fur products prior to ultimate sale; failing to label fur products; failing to show on invoices that products contained artificially colored furs, and to use the term “natural” where required; by advertising which failed to disclose the country of origin of imported furs, and representing falsely that fictitious prices were reductions from regular retail prices; by failing to maintain adequate records as a basis for price and value claims; and failing to comply in other respects with the requirements of the Act.

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 Berman Furs & Sportswear, Inc., a corporation, and Anna Berman, Harold Berman, and Benjamin Berman, individually and as officers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respond- ‘ents, 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:

Paracrary 1. Respondent Berman Furs & Sportswear, 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 684 North Clinton Avenue, Rochester, N.Y. Respondents Anna Berman, Harold Berman and Benjamin Berman -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 corporate respondent.

Respondents retail fur products and sportswear. 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 distribu- BERMAN FURS & SPORTSWEAR, INC., ET AL. 1421 1420 Complaint tion, 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 had been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms “commerce”,.“fur” and “fur product” aredefined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 8. Respondents have removed, or caused or participated in the. removal of, prior to the time certain fur products were sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer, labels required by the Fur Products Labeling Act to be affixed to such products, in violation of Section: 3(d) of said Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

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, werefur products without labels.

‘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 thereunderinasmuch as required item numbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. ' Par. 6. 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 thereunder.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, 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 in fact the fur contained in such fur products was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially: colored.

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 pro-. mulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) The term “natural” was not used to describe fur products that. 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 viola-. tion of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Decision and Order 61 F.T.C.

Par. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and 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.

Among and included in the advertisements as aforesaid, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the Rochester Times Union, a newspaper published in the ‘elty of Rochester, State of New York.

Among such false and deceptive advertisements of fur products, but ‘not limited thereto were advertisements which failed to show the name of the country of origin of the imported furs contained in fur products. Par. 9. In advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid respondents ‘represented prices of fur products as having been reduced from regular or usual prices where the so-called regular or usual. prices were in fact fictitious in that they were not the prices at which said mer- -chandise was usually sold by respondents in the recent regular course of business, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44(a) of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 10. In advertising fur products for sale 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. 11. 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. 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 Labeling Act, and the respondents having been served with notice of BERMAN FURS & SPORTSWEAR, INC., ET AL. 1423 1420 Decision and Order 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 Berman Furs & Sportswear, 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 684 North Clinton Avenue, Rochester, N.Y. Respondents Anna Berman, Harold Berman and Benjamin Berman 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 respondents Berman Furs & Sportswear Inc., & corporation, and its officers, and Anna Berman, Harold Berman, and Benjamin Berman, 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 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.

Decision and Order 61 F.T.C.

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. 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 on invoices the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

8. 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, an which:

A. Fails to set forth in words and figures plainly legible, all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. B. Represents directly or by implication that the regular or usual price of any fur product is any amount which is in excess of the price at which. respondents have usually and customarily sold such product in the recent regular course of business.

4, Making claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations 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 Berman Furs & Sportswear, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Anna Berman, Harold Berman, and Benjamin Berman, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from removing, or causing or participating in the removal of, prior to the time any fur product subject to the provisions of the Fur Products Labeling Act is sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer, any label required by the said Act to be affixed to such fur product. 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. UNITED STATES LIQUIDATION CO., ETC. 1425 Complaint