K. & W. Fur Co., Inc., doing business as Kresel & Wolf

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

IN THE MATTER OF K. &. ,V. VCR CO. , IXC. DorX" DFSIXESS AS KRESEL & WOLF ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER , ETC., IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRDE COMMISSION A:KD THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-579. Complaint, Sept. 1965-Decision, Sept. , 1%3 Consent order requiring retail furriers in Kew Ha,-el, Conn., to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failng. Oll invoices and in advertising. to show the true animal name of fur and when fur was artificially colored to use tbe word ';natural" for fur that was not IJleacbed or dyed, and the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" as required, and using the term Broadtail" improperly; failng, 011 invoices, to show the country origin of imported furs and to use the term "Persian Lamb" where required; invoicing furs from S.'''. Africa as from Russia. and using the name of another animal than that which produced a fur; failng to keep Ildequate records as a basis for pricing claims: ano. failng in other respects to comply with requirements of the Act.

COMPLAINT Pursuant t.o the provisi ons of the Federal Trade Commission Act and t.he Fur Products Labeling Act and by virt.ue of t.he aut.hority vest.ed in it. by said Acts, t.he Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe t.hat K. & ,V. Fur Co., Inc., a corporate.ion doing business as Kre.sel & 'Woif, and George M. Dermer and Herman Kat.z, individually and as offcers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulat.ions promulgat.ed under t.he Fur Products Labeling Act and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect , 606 FEDERAL TRADE CO:.IMISSIO DECI.SIONS Oomplaint 63 F.

thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: P A1.GRAPH 1. Respondent. K. & 1V. Fur Co., Inc., doing busines as Kresel & Wolf, is a corporate.ion organized, exist.ing and doing busines Ullder and by virt.ue of the laws of t.he St.ate of Connect.ieut.. Respondents George M. Dermer and Herm'1n Kat.z are offcers of the corporate respondent a,nd formulate, direct and control the acts pract.ices and policies of the said corporate respondent including thos hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are retailers of fur products with their offce and principal pbce of business located at 196 Orange Street, New Haven Connecticut.

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 product.s; and have sold, advert.ised, offered for sale, transported and dist.ributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part. of furs which have been shipped and received i11 commerce, as the terms ':commerce :fur" and "fur product" are defmed in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 3. Cert.ain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by t.he respondEmts in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgat.ed under such Act.. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, ",ere fur products covered by invoices which failed: 1. To show t.he true animal name of the fur used in the fur product. 2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur product was bJeac.hed, dyed, or otherwise artific.ially colored, wher such was the fact.

3. To show the country of Origin of imported furs used in fur products.

\R. 4. Ce tftin of said fur products Liere, falsely T and deccp::ively invoi ced with respect to the name of the country of origin of imported furs used in such fur products, in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Product.s Labeling Act.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited t.hereto, were fur products invoiced to show the name of the country of origin of furs contained in such fur products fts RU2sia \\'hen the country of origin of such furs was, in fact, S'-V\!. Africa. PAR. 5. Certaln of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in t.hat respondents set forth on jnvoices pertaining to :fur KRESEL & IVOLF ET AL. 607 Complaint605products the name of an animal other than the name of the anim",l that produced the fur from which the said fur product.s had been manufact.ured, in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

and deceptively PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were blsely 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 mn.nllfoctured, in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such falsely and decept.ively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products which we.re invoieed as "Broadtail" thereby implying t.hat the furs conta.ined therein were entitled to the designation "Broadtail Lamb" when in truth and in fact they were not entitled to sllch designation.

PAn. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of doe Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulfttions promulgated thereunder in tlw, following respects: (a, ) The term "Persian Lamb ,yas not set forth on invoices in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 8 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The tcrr:i Dyed Brofldtail processed Lamb)) was not set forth on involceE in the manner required by law, in violation oT Rule 10 of sa,icl E.,nies and Regulations.

(c) The term "natUl'fll" ,vas not used on invoices t.o describe. fur proc1nc1"s '\v11ich were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise nrtificiaJ1y colored in violation of Rule 10 (g) of said Rules and Regnlations.

(cl) Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Produets T--labeling Aet and the Rules and Regulations promulgRt.ed thereunder wa not set forth separately on invoices with respect to eRcll section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing di:fcnmt animal furs, in violation of Rule 36 of said Rules and Regulations.

(e) I?eqnired ite,m numbers wens not set forth on invoices, in viola. 1.ion of Rule 40 of snicl Rule,s a.nd Regulations. PAR. S. Cart-aiel of said fui' products \'ere falsely and deceptively advertised in. violation of the 1Iur Products L tbe1ing Act in that certa.in ad-vertiscments jntended to aiel, proil'Ote a, nd assist., directly or indirectly) in the sale and oft'edng fer sale of such fur products were not in accordance 1vit.h the provisions of Section 5(a) of the, )Lli\l Act. Among and included in the aforesaid advertisements but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues 608 FEDERAL TR-\DE CO:\L\IIS,'s'lOS DF.CISI02\ C'OHJI11.'int 63 F.

of the Jlew Haven Register, a newspaper published in t.he cit.y of Nmv lIaven, State of Connect.icut.

Among such false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advert.is ments \which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of t.he fur used jn the fur product. 2. To show t.hat the fur contained in t.he fur product was bleached dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact. PAR. 9. By me.ans of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not spccifical1y referred to herein, 1'0. spondents falsely and deceptively ad\'crtiscd fur products in t.hat certain of said fur products were falsely or deceptively identified with respect to the name, or (le.signation of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which t.he saiel fur products had been manufactured, in violahon of Section 5 (a) (5) of t.he Fur Products Labelmg Act.

Among such falsely and decephvely advertised fur products, but not limited t.hereto were fur products flc1n rtised as " Broadtail" thereby implying that the furs cont.ained therein were entitled to tbe designat.ion "Broadtail Lamb" when in truth and in fact they were not entitled to such designation.

PAR. 10. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and decep1iycly acln:rtisecl 1'nr' produ('t, in violation of the Fnl' Produc.ts Labeling Act in that the sfl1(1 fur products \ycre not achert.ised in accordance ,\'jth the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) Tbe term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth jn the manner required, in Yiolat.ion of Rule 10 of the said Rule. and Regulations.

(b) The term "natural" vms not used t.o describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artifieial1y colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of the said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 11. In advertising fur products for sale, as aforesaid, respondents made pricing chims and representations of the t.types covered by subsect.ions (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 41 oftbe Regulations under the Fur Products Labeling Act. Respondents in lYulking such claims and represent.ations faded to maintain full and adequate records disclosing t.he facts upon which such pdcing claims awl representations were based, in violation of 1\uJe 44(e) of the said Hules and Regulations.

PAR. 12. Tbe aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act end tbe KRESEL &: WOLF ET AL. 609 BO;) Decif:ion and Order Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constituu, unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of oompetition 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 and the respondents having been served with notice of sn.id determination and with a copy of the complaint the Comlnis sion 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, " statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the Jaw has been violated as set forth in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission 8 rules; and The Commission having considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agre,ement, makes the following jm'i,"clictional findings and enters the following order:

1. Respondent K. & IV. Fur Co., Inc., doing business as Kresel & Wolf is a corporation organizect existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the State of Connecticut, with its offce and principal place of business located at 196 Orange Street, New Haven, Connecticut.

Respondents George M. Dermer and Herman Katz are offcers the corporate respondent and their address is the same as that of said corporate respondent.

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 ;8 ordered That respondents K. & IV. Fur Co., Inc. , a corporation doing business as K1'e::ol & "\V olf, and its offc.er, and George Dermer and I-Ierman Kntz, indi"l'idually and as offcers of said corporation, a.nd respondents' representatives, agents and employees directly or through a.ny corporate or other device in connec.tion with the introduction, into commerce, or the sa.le, advertising or offering for sale in c.commerce, or the transportation or distrjbution in c.om- , 610 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIOK DECJSIOXS' Decision and Order 63 F.

merce, of any fur product; or in connection with the sale, advertising, ouering for sale, transportation or distribution, of any fur prod uct which is made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labcling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. 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. 2. J\fisrepresenting in any manner, directly or by L?Jplica. tion, the country of origin of the fur contained in fur products.

3. Setting forth on the invoices pertaining to fur products the name or names of any animal or animals other than the name of the animal producing the fur contained in t,he fur product as specified in the Fur Products Name Guide, and as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations. 4. Setting forth on invoices pertaining to fur products any false or deceptive information with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in such fur product.

5. Failing to set forth the term "Persian Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead or the word "Lamb"

6. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" in the ma.nner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words "Dyed L mb" 7. Failing to set forth the term "Natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on invoices under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

8. 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 sec60n of :fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs. 9. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to fur products.

MODEL HOME FliRNITURE CORP. ET AL. 611 605 Syllabus B. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, representation, public alIDouncedi- ment or notice which is intended to aid, promote or assist, rectly or indirectly, in the sale, or offering for sale of any fur product, and w hieh :

1. Fails to set forth in words and figures plainly legible all t.he informat.ion required t.o be disclosed by each of the subsect.ions of Sect.ion 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Falsely or decept.ively ident.ifies any such fur product as to the name or designation of t.he animal or animals that produced the fur cont.ained in the fur product. 3. Fails t.o set. fort.h t.he term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that t.erm instead of the words "Dyed Lamb" 4. 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.

C. Making claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act unless there are maintained by respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based.

It i8 further ordered That the respondent.s herein shall, wit.hin sixty (60) dllYs after service upon t.hem of this order, file wit.h the Commission a report in writing setting fort.h in detllil the manner and form in which they have complied with this order.