Donald & Dunager, Inc.

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

In ree Matrer oF DONALD & DUNAGER, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THR. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-512. Complaint, June 20, 1963—Decision, June 20, 1963 Consent order requiring manufacturing furriers in Dallas, Tex., to cease vio-lating the Fur Products Labeling Act by such practices as labeling fur products as “Broadtail Lamb” when they were not entitled to such designation and by failing to show on labels the true animal name of furs and other required information.

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 Donald & Dunager, Inc., a corporation, and Leon Dunager, and Martin Donald, 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 DONALD & DUNAGER, INC., ET AL. 1407 1406 ; Complaint 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:

Paracrapn 1. Respondent Donald & Dunager, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas.

Respondents Leon Dunager and Martin Donald are officers of the corporate respondent and formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are manufacturers and wholesalers of fur products with their office and principal place of business located at the Adolphus Hotel, Dallas, Texas.

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 furs which have 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 falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely or deceptively identified with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such misbranded fur products but not limited thereto were fur products labeled as “Broadtail” thereby implying that the furs contained therein were entitled to the designation “Broadtail Lamb”, when in truth and in fact they were not entitled to such designation. Par. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were not labeled 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 show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product.

Par. 5. Certain of said fur products were misbranded, in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled Decision and Order 62 F.T.C.

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

2. The term “Persian Lamb” was not set forth on labels in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 8 of said Rules and Regulations.

8. The term “Dyed Broadtail- “processed Lamb” was not set forth on labels in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 10 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.

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 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 Donald & Dunager, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the DONALD & DUNAGER, INC., ET AL. 1409 1406 Order State of Texas, with its office and principal place of business located at the Adolphus Hotel, Dallas, Texas.

Respondents Leon Dunager and Martin Donald 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 Lt is ordered, That respondents Donald & Dunager, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Leon Dunager and Martin Donald, 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, or manufacture for 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 manufacture for sale, sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution, of any fur product which is made in whole or 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:

A. Misbranding fur products by:

1. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying any such fur product as to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product.

2. Failing to affix labels to fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

3. Setting forth the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form on labels affixed to fur products.

4. Failing to set forth the term “Persian Lamb” on labels in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the word “Lamb”.

5. Failing to set forth the term “Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb” on labels in the manner required where an election is made to use that term in lieu of the term “Dyed Lamb”. 6. Failing to set forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Complaint 62 F.T.C.

Regulations promulgated thereunder on labels in the sequence required by Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. It is further ordered, That each of 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.