Meyer M. Spillman trading as Spillman Fur Co.

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

In THE Marrer oF MEYER M. SPILLMAN TRADING AS SPILLMAN FUR CO. CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-317. Complaint, Feb. 28, 1963—Decision, Feb. 28, 1963 Consent order requiring a retail furrier in San Antonio, Tex., to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to disclose on labels and invoices when fur products contained artificially colored fur and the country of origin of imported furs and to describe as “Natural” furs which were not bleached or dyed; failing to show on labels the name of the manufacturer, etc., and to indicate when fur was used or “Second-hand”; substituting nonconforming labels for those affixed by manufacturers or distributors: and failing in other respects to comply with advertising, labeling and invoicing requirements.

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 Meyer M. Spillman, an individual trading as Spillman Fur Co., hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated SPILLMAN FUR CO. 801 800 Complaint 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:

Paracrarpy 1. Respondent Meyer M. Spillman is an individual trading as Spillman Fur Co. Said respondent is a retail furrier with his office and principal place of business located at 1816 North Main Avenue, San Antonio, Texas.

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 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. 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 with labeis which failed:

1. To show that the fur product contained or was composed of used fur when such was the fact.

2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored when such was the fact.

3. 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, advertised or offered them for sale, in commerce, or transported or distributed them in commerce. 4, Toshow the country of origin of the imported furs used in the fur product.

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 in the following respects:

1. Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder Complaint 62 F.T.C.

was set forth in abbreviated form in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

2. 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. 3. The disclosure “Second-hand” in the manner required, was not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 23 of said Rules and Regulations.

4, 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.

5. 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 misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely and deceptively identified with respect to the name or other identification issued and registered by the Commission of one or more of the persons who manufactured such fur product for introduction into commerce, introduced it into commerce, sold it in commerce, advertised: or offered it for sale in commerce, or transported or distributed it in commerce, in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 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 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 disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artifically colored when such was the fact. 2. To show the country of origin of the imported furs used in the fur product.

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: 1. 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. 2. Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. SPILLMAN FUR CO. 803 800 Decision and Order 3. 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.

Par. 8. Respondent has sold, advertised, offered for sale and processed fur products which have been shipped and received in commerce, and has misbranded said fur products by substituting for 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. 9. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent, 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 respondent named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling 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 Meyer M. Spillman is an individual trading as Spillman Fur Co., and has his office and principal place of business at 1816 North Main Avenue, San Antonio, Texas.

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.

Decision and Order 62 F.T.C.

ORDER Zt is ordered, That Meyer M. Spillman, an individual trading as Spillman Fur Co., 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, 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. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

C. Failing to set forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in the required sequence.

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

E, Failing to disclose that fur products contain or are composed of “Second-Hand Used Fur”, when a fur product has been used or worn by an ultimate consumer and is subsequently marketed in its original, reconditioned, or rebuilt form with or without the addition of any furs or used furs. F. Failing to set forth on labels the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

G. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying any such fur product as to the name or other identification issued and registered by the Commission, of one or more of the persons who manufacture such fur product for introduction into commerce, introduce it into commerce, sell it in commerce, advertise or offer it for sale in commerce, or transport or distribute it in commerce.

PANAT JEWELRY CO., INC., ET AL. 805 800 Sylabus 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 use the term “Natural” to describe a fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artifically colored.

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

D. 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.

It is further ordered, That respondent in connection with the selling, offering for sale, or processing fur products which have been shipped or received in commerce, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding fur products by substituting for the labels affixed to such fur products pursuant to Section 4 of the Fur Products Labeling Act labels which do not conform to the requirements of the aforesaid Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. 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.