Jo Copeland Furs Inc.

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

IN THE :MATTER OF JO COPELAND FURS INC., FORMERLY D/B/A BRODY GROSSMAN CORPORATION ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER: ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE CO)fMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LAELI G ACTS Docket 0-574. Complaint, Sept. 10, 1965-Decision, Sept. 10, 1963 Consent order requiring ew York City who.lesale furriers to. cease vio.latln&, the Fur Products Labeling Act by labeling and invo.icing artificially co.lored fur pro.ducts as natural and failng to. disclose on labels and invo.ices 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 J 0 Copeland Furs Inc., a corporation formerly doing business under the corporate Harne of Brody Grossman Corporation and I-Iarry Grossman and Dan Grossman, individually and as offcers 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: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent J a Copeland Furs Inc., formerly doing business under the corporate name of Brody Grossman Corporation, is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of N ew York. Respondents Harry Grossman and Dan Grossman are offcers of the corporate respondent and formulate, direct and control the acts , 572 FEDERAL TRADE, COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint 63 F.

practices and policies of the said corporate respondent, including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are wholesalers of fur products with their offce and principal place of business located at 333 Seventh Avenue, New York New York.

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 sale, advertising, and offering for sale in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution in commerce, of fur products; and have 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 to show that fur contained therein was natural, when in fact such fur was 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 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 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 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 deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited 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 contained 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. PAR. 7. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the JO COPELA D Furs IXC. ! ET AL. 573 571 Decision and Order Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute m:f and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competltIon in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. DECISION AND ORDER The Commission ha vin 0' 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 settement 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 rules j 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 J a Copeland Furs Inc., formerly doing business under the corporate name of Brody Grossman Corporation, is a corporation organized, e.existing and doing- business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Kew York, with its offce and p,'jncipal place of business Jocated at 333 Seventh Avenue, New York New York.

Respondents I-larry Grossman and Dan Grossman arc offcers or 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 ordel'ed That respondents Jo Copeland Furs Inc., a corporat.ioll formerly doing business under,r the corporate name 'Of Brody Grossman Corporation, and its offcers, and Harry Grossman and Dan Grossman, inc1ivichut11y and as officers of said corporation and responclents representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in cOIUlection with the intro. , 574 FEDERAL TRADE, COl\LvllSSIOX DECISIO!\"'S Syllabus 63 F.

duction 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: 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 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: . Failing to furnish invojces to purchasers of fur products showing in \' orc1s and figures phinly legible a.1l the information required to be disclosed in each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 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 furthe1' 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