H. Greenblatt Company, Inc., trading as; Greenblatts Brazy Brothers Furriers et al.

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

IN THE :MATTER OF H. GREE BLATT COllPAKY, I , TRING GREEJlBLATTS BRAZY BROTHERS FURRIERS ET AL. CONSENT ORDER: ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE C03flnSSION AND THE FU PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 0-57"1. Complaint, Sept. 1963 Decision, Sept. , 1963 Consent order requiring retail furriers in South Bend, Ind. , to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by removing required labels prior to de. livery of fur products to the ultimate consumers, and by substituting nonconforming labels for those originally attached; failng, on labels and invoices and in advertising, to name the country of origin of imported furs and to use the term "Natural" for furs not artificially colored; labeling imported furs as products of the United States; failng, on tags and invoices, to give the true animal name of the fur, to disclose on labels that fur products contained cheap or waste fur, and labeling "Blue Fox." as "Fox. ; failng on invoices to disclose when fur was artificially colored and to set forth the term "Dyed Mouton Lamb" as required, and invoicing "Japanese Mink" as " Mink" ; advertising prices of fur products falsely as "up to 70% off" , failng to maintain adequate records to maintain pricing claims; and failng in other respects to conform with requirements of the law.

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. Greenblatt Company, Inc., a corporation trading fls Greenblatts Brazy Brothers Furriers and Sylvia Brazy, Lee Brazy, and Simon Brazy 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 promnlgated 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:

PAR\GRAPH 1. Respondent H. Greenblatt Company, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the la" s of the State of Indiana. The corporate respondent trades under the. name of GreenbJatts Brazy Brothers Furriers. Respondents Sylvia Brazy, Lee Brazy and Simon Brazy are offcers of the corporate respondent nndformnlate di.rect nnd control the ads. practicps and policies-: of t.he .'::aic1 corporate respol1(1t'Jlt inclnc1jng those. hereimlfte1' sr,/. felt 11.

, , GREENBLATTS BRAZY BROS. FUHHIERS ET AL. 589 Complaint588Respondents are retailers of fur products with their offce and pricipal place of business located at 230 South Michigan Street, South Bend, Indiana.

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 tra,nsportation and distri but.ion 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. Respondents have removed and have caused and participated in the removal of, prior to the time fur products subject to the provisions of thc Fur Products Labeling Act were sold and delivered to t.he ultimate consumer, labels required by the Fur Products Labeling Act to be affxed to such products, in violation of Section 3(d) of said Act.

PAR. 4. 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 of the country of origin of furs contained in such products, in violation of Section 4 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such misbranded fur products, but not Jimited thereto, were fur products labeled to show that the country of origin of furs used in such fur products was the United States when in fact such furs were imported.

PAR. 5. 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 which were labeled as "Fox" when the fur cont.ained in such product was, in fact Blue Fox PAR. 6. 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: 1. To show the true animal name of fur used in the fnr product.

590 FEDERAL TRrADE CO:\lmission DECISIONS' CDllpJaint 63 F.

2. To show the country of origin of the imported furs contained in the fur product.

PAR. 7. 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 Reglllations promulgated thcrmmder in the following respects:

(a) 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.

(b) The term "natural" was not used on labels to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(9) of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) The disclosure that fur products were composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, sides, flanks, gils, ears throats, heads, scrap pieces or waste fur, where required, was not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 20 of said Rules and Regulations. (d) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not completely set out on one side of labels, in violation of Rule 29(a) of said Rules and Regulations.

(e) 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.

(f) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth separately on labels with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs, in violation of Rule 36 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondent.s in t.hat. t.hey were not invoiced as required by Section 5 (b) (1) of t.he Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgat.ed under such Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur product.s, but. not. limited t.hereto, were fur products covered by invoices which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of tI1C fur llsed in the fur product.

2. To disclose t.hat. t.he fur contaiued in the fur product was bleached dyed: or othenvise artificially colored, when such .was the fact. 3. To show the oul)try of origin of bnported fUTs used in fur products.

GREENBLATTS BRAZY BROS. FURRIERS ET AL. 591 ComplaitMePAR. 9. 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) Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Prodncts Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated therenuder was set forth on invoices in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The term "Dyed Mouton Lamb" was not set forth on invoices in t.he manner required by law, in violation of Rule 9 of said Rules and R.Bgulations.

(0) Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Prodnets Labeling Act and the Rnles and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth separately on invoices with respect to each ection of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs, in violation of Rule 36 of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 10. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced 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 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products which were invoiced as "Mink" when\ in fact, the fur contained in such products was "Japanese Mink"

PAR. 11. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Prod nets Labeling Act in that certai l RdverHsements intended to aid, promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and offedng for sale of such fur products were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(a) of the said Act. Among and included in the aforesaid advertisement.s but not lim- Hed thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of The South Bend Tribune, a newspaper published in the City of Sout.h Bend, State of Indiana.

among such false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited t11E'Teto, were advertisements which failed to show the country of origin of imported ilrs contained in fur products. PAR. 12. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that the said fur products were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations Decision: and Ord-er 63 P. promulgated thereunder inasmuch as the term "natural" was not used to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(9) of the said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 13. In a.advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid respondents represented through such statements as "Up to 70% Off" that prices of fur products were reduced in direct proportion to the percentages stated and that the amount of said reduction afforded savings to the purchasers of respondents' products when in fact such prices werenot reduced in direct proportion to the percentages stated and the represented savings were not thereby afforded to the said purchasers, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 14. In advertising fur products for sale, as aforesaid, respondents made pricing claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the RBgulations under the Fur Products Labeling Act. Respondents in making such claims and representations failed to maintain fuil and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such pricing claims and representations are based, in violation of Rule 44 (e) of the said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 15. Respondents in introducing, selling, advertising: and offering for sale, in commerce, and in processing for commerce. fur products; and in selling, advertising, offering for sale and processing fur products ,, :ich have been shipped and received in commerce have misbranded such fur products by subst.ituting thereon, labels which did not. conform t.o t.he requirements of Sect.ion 4 of the Fur Product.s Labeling Act, for the labels affxed to said fur products by the manufacturer or distributor pursuant to Section 4 of said Act, in violation of Section 3 (e) of said Act.

PAR. 16. 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 c ptioJl 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" proposed form of order; and GREEKBLATTS BRAZY BROS. FURRIERS ET AL. 593 :-I Decisiun and Order The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter xecuted 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 aud 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; 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 H. Greenblatt Company, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue aT the laws of the State of Indiana. The corporate respondent tmdcs under the me Greenblatts Brazy Brothers Furriers. Respondents Sylvia Brazy, Lee Brazy and Simon Brazy are offeers of said corporation "nd all of the respondents have their offce and principal place of LEJ2iness at 230 South J\fichigan Street, South Bend, Indiana. 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 H. Greenblatt Company, Inc. , a corporation, trading as Greenblatts Brazy Brothers Furriers or under any other trade nalIe and its oilcer, and Sylvia Brazy, Lee Brazy and Simon Brazy, individually and as offcers of said corporation and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the 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 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" ate defined in :he 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 country of origin of furs contained in such fur product.

2. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying any such product as to the name or designation of the ani- FEDERAL TRiADE 11nSSION DECISIONSI594 Decision and Order 63 F.

major' animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product.

3. Failing to affx labels to fur products showing in words and in figures plainly legible all of the information required to be d; sdosed by each of the subsections of Section 4(2) of the Flu Products Labeling Act.

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

5. Failing to set forth the term "Natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on labels under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

6. Failing to disclose on labels that fur products are composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies sides, flanks, gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap pieces or waste fur.

7. Failing to completely set out information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations thereunder on one side of the labels affxed to fur products.

8. Failing to set forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder on labels in the sequence required by Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

9. Failing to set forth separately on labels attached to fur . products composed of two or more sections containing different animal fur the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labehng Act and the Rules and Regulat.ions promulgated thereunder with respect to the fur comprising each section.

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 al1 the information required to be disclosed in each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Setting forth informat.ion required under Scct.ion 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form. GREENBLATTS BRAZY BROS. FURRIERS ET AI.. 595 5SS Decision and Ord:er 3. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Mouton Lamb" in the manner required where au election is made to use that term instead of the word "Dyed Lamb"

4. Failing to set forth separately information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs. 5. Setting forth on invoices pertaining to fur products any false or deceptive information ith respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in such fur product.

C. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement or notice which is intended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale, or offering for sale of any fur product, and which:

1. Fails to set forth in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Fails to set forth the term "~natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed in advertisements under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

3. Represents directly or by implication through percentage savings claims that prices of fur products are reduced to afford purchasers of respondents' fur products the percentage of savings stated when the prices of such fur products are not reduced to afford to purchasers the percentage of savings stated.

4. :Misreprese,nts in any manner the savings available to purchasers of respondents' fur products.

5. Falsely or deceptively represents in any manner that prices of respondents' fur products are reduced. D. Irking claims and representat.ions of the types covered by subsect.ions (0), (b), (c.) and (d) of Rule 4cl of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products La.beling Act unless there ate maintaine,cl by respondents full and adequate rp.c.ords (hsclosing the facts upon ,which such chims and repre sentations are based.

Syllabns It is f"rther ordered That respondents 1-1. Greenblatt Company, Inc., a corporation, trading as GreenblaUs Brazy Brothers Furriers or under' any other trade name and its offcers, and Sylvia Brazy, Lee Brazy and Simon Brazy indi vi dually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directl:y or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from removing, or causing or participating in the removal of prior to the time any fur product subject to the provisions of the Fur Products Labeling Act is sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer, any label required by the said Act to be affxed to such fur product.

It is f"rther ordered That respondents II. Greenblatt Company, 1ur corporation, trading as Greenblatts Brazy Brothers Furriers or under any other trade name and its offcers, and Sylvia Brazy, Lee Brazy and Simon Brazy individually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees rectly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, sale, advertising or offering for sale, in commerce or the processing for commerce, of fur products; or in connection with the selling, advertising, offering for sale, or processing of fur products which have been shipped and received in commerce, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding fur products by substituting for the labels affxed to such fur products pursuant to Section 4 of the Fur Products Labeling Act labels which do not conform to the requirements of the aforesaid Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

It i8 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.