H. & D. Grossman Corporation

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

IN THE MATTER OF H. & D. GROSS"'lan CORPORATION CONSENT ORDER ETC. IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION" OF THE FEDERAL TRADE CO)IJ'IISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 0-578. GornpZaint, Sept. 10, 1963-Decision, Sept. 10, 1963 Consent order requiring Nmv York City manufacturing furriers to cellse violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by labeling and invoicing artificially colored fur products as natural and failng to discloi"e on labels and invoices that certain furs were bleached, dyed, etc. 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 H. & D. Grossman Corporation, a corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondent has violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, and it appearing to the Commssion 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:

PAfu\GRAPH 1. Respondent H. & D. Grossman Corporation is a corporation organized, existing and doing ,business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Xew York.

llespondent is a manufacturer of fur products with its offce and principal place of business located at 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York.

PAH. 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 COIDlnerce, 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 has 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 t.he 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 to show that fur contained therein was natural, when in fact such fur was pointed, bleached H. & D. GROSSM,u, CORP. 569 568 Decision and. Order 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) and formof the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. , ,,:ereAmong such misbra-ndecl fur products, but not limited thereto fur products with labels 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. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondent 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 limted thereto, were fur products covered by invoices 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. 6 Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that said fur products were invoiced to show that the fur conta,ined therein was natural, when in fact such fur was pointed bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAIL 7. 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 Commssion 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 ha 1,'ing thcl'cafte.r xecuted 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 signng of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission 570 FEDERAL TRADE COM:VIIeSIOX DECISIONS Desion- and; Order 63 F.

by respondent that the law has been violated as set forth in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as reuired by the Commsion s rules; and The Commssion, having considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agrment, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent H. & D. Grossman Corporation is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of N ew York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York. 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.

ORDER I t is ordered That respondent H. & D. Grossman Corporation a corporation, and its offcers, and respondent's 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 hl commerce, or the transport.ation 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 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 forth with cease and desist from:

A. Misbranding fur products by:

1. Representing directly or by implication on labels that the fur contained in any fur product is natural when the fur contained therein is pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

2. Failing to affx labels to fur products showing in words and in 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.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed in each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 30 COPELAND YCRS INC. , ET AL. 571 568 Complaint 2. Representing directly or by implication on invoices that the fur contained in fur products is natural when such fur is pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

It is fU1'ther ordered That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing- setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with this order.