Rosenbaum & Hochberg, Inc.

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

In TE Marrer or ROSENBAUM & HOCHBERG, 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-318. Complaint, Ifar. 8, 1963—Decision, Mar. 8, 1963 Consent order requiring New York City manufacturers of fur garments, to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by labeling and invoicing fur products as “natural” when they were artificially colored, and failing to disclose that the fur contained therein was bleached or dyed; failing to use the term “natural” on labels where appropriate; and failing in other respects to comply with 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 Rosenbaum & Hochberg, Inc., a corporation and Tobias Rosenbaum and Irving Hochberg, individually and as officers of said corporate respondent, 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 Complaint 62 F.T.C.

would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

Paracrapy 1. Respondent Rosenbaum & Hochberg, 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 352 Seventh Avenue, in the city of New York, State of New York.

Proposed individual respondents Tobias Rosenbaum and Irving Hochberg are officers of said corporation and they formulate, direct and control the policies, acts and practices of said corporation and their address is the same as that of said corporation. Respondents are manufacturers of fur garments selling to jobbers, department stores and specialty shops throughout the United States. 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, 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, 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. 8. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely and deceptively identified in that said fur products were described on labels as natural when in truth and in fact such fur products were pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling 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 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 to disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored when such was the fact.

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. The term “natural” was not used on labels to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise ROSENBAUM & HOCHBERG, INC., ET AL. 827 825 , Decision and Order artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(g) of said Rules and Regulations.

B. Required item numbers or marks 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 under such Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were invoices pertaining to such fur products which failed to disclose that the fur contained in the fur product 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 that. respondents set forth on invoices pertaining to fur products that said fur products were natural when in truth and in fact such fur products were pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Par. 8. 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 that required item numbers or marks were not set forth on invoices in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 9. 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 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 com- Decision and Order 62 F.T.C.

plaint, 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, Rosenbaum & Hochberg, 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 852 Seventh Avenue, in the city of New York, State of New York.

Respondents Tobias Rosenbaum and Irving Hochberg 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 Rosenbaum & Hochberg, Inc., a corporation and its officers, and Tobias Rosenbaum and Irving Hochberg, 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, manufacture for introduction, 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, manufacture for 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. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying fur products as natural when such fur products are pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored. 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. Failing to set forth on labels the term “Natural” where such fur or fur product is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

NIC KUEHN, INC., ET AL. 829 825 Complaint D. 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. Describing fur products on invoices pertaining thereto as natural when such fur products are 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.

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.