Trade Mark Fur Corporation

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

In THe Marrer or TRADE MARK FUR CORPORATION ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 0-510. Complaint, June 20, 1968—Decision, June 20, 1968 Consent order requiring manufacturing furriers in New York City to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to disclose on labels and invoices that certain fur products contained artificially colored fur, failing to disclose on invoices the country of origin of imported furs and to describe fur products as natural when such was the case, and failing to comply in other respects with labeling and invoicing requirements. ComMPLAINT 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 Trade Mark Fur Corporation, a corporation, and Norbert Kerner, Max Goldman, and Benjamin Goldman, 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: Paracrapy 1. Respondent Trade Mark Fur Corporation, 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 252 West 30th Street, New York, N.Y. Individual respondents Norbert Kerner, Max Goldman and Benjamin Goldman TRADE MARK FUR CORP. ET AL. 1399 1398 Complaint are officers of the said corporation and control, direct and formulate the acts, practices and policies of the said corporation. Their office and principal place of business is the same as that of the said ‘corporation.

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, 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 labels which failed to disclose that the fur products contained or were composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur when in fact such fur products contained or were composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur. 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 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:

(a) To disclose that the fur products contained or were composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur, when in fact such fur products contained or were composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur.

(b) To disclose the name of the country of origin of the imported furs contained in fur products.

Decision and Order 62 F.T.C.

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) Fur products were not described 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. 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 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 Trade Mark Fur Corporation 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 252 West 30th Street, New York, New York. Respondents Norbert Kerner, Max Goldman and Benjamin Goldman are officers of the said corporation, and their office and principal place of business is the same as that of said corporation. TRADE MARK FUR CORP. ET AL. 1401 1398 Decision and Order 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 Trade Mark Fur Corporation, a corporation, and its officers, and Norbert Kerner, Max Goldman and Benjamin Goldman, individually and as offices 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 Product Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Misbranding fur products by:

A. Failing to set forth on labels affixed to such fur products, 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 toa fur product.

2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Failing to furnish to purchasers of fur products invoices 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.

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. 1402 FEDERAL.TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint 62 F.T.C.