Winter Products, Inc.

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

In tue Matrrer or WINTER PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-792. Complaint, July 17, 1964—Decision, July 17, 1964 Consent order requiring New York City manufacturers of fur trimmings, millinery, muffs and neck pieces, to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by labeling and invoicing American Sable as ‘“Tip-dyed Sable” or “Sable” : failing to show the true animal name of fur and when fur was artificially colored, and to set forth such terms as ‘Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb” as required, on labels and invoices; invoicing processed fur falsely as “Persian”; failing to use such terms as “Blended,” “Natural” and “Persian Lamb” properly on invoices; and failing in other respects to comply with labeling ‘and invoicing requirements of the Act. Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 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 Winter Products, Inc., a corporation and Jack Winter, Daniel Levy, Charles Miranda and Mark Benson, individually and as officers of 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:

Paracrapy 1. Respondent, Winter Products, Inc., is a corporation, organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Complaint 66 F.T.C.

Respondents Jack Winter, Daniel Levy, Charles Miranda and Mark Benson are officers of the corporate respondent and formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of said corporate respondent, including those hereinafter set forth. Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of fur trimmings, millinery, muffs and neck pieces, and have their office and principal place of business located at 49 West 37th Street, 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 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. 8. 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 “Tip-dyed Sable” when the fur contained in such product was, in fact “American Sable.” Pan. 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:

1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product. 9. 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 misbranded, in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

1. The term “Dyed Mouton Lamb” was not set forth on labels in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 9 of the said Rules and Regulations.

WINTER PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL. 173:

171 Complaint 2. 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.

8. Required item numbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondents 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 limited thereto, were fur products covered by invoices which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product. 2. To show that the fur product contains or is composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur when such is the fact. 8. To show the country of origin of imported furs used in fur products.

Par. 7. 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 “Sable” when, in fact, the fur contained in such products was “American Sable.”

Par.8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced under Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that invoices relating thereto contained statements which represented, directly or by implication, that the products contained the fur of a certain fur-bearing animal whereas, in truth and in fact, the product did not contain the fur of such animal.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur-trimmed fabric coats. The fabric in thesecoats did not contain the fur of the “Persian Lamb” but had been processed to resemble such fur. These said fur products were invoiced as “Persian” and were thus represented falsely and deceptively, directly or by implication, as containing the fur of the Persian Lamb. Par. 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: Decision and Order 66 F.T.C.

1. The term “Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb” was not set forth on invoices in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

2. The term “Blended” was used on invoices as part of the information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe the pointing, bleaching, dyeing, tip-dyeing, or otherwise artificial coloring of furs, in violation of Rule 19(f) of said Rules and Regulations.

3. The term “Natural” was not used on invoices to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(g) of said Rules and Regulations.

4, Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. 5. The term “Persian Lamb” was not set forth on invoices in the manner required by Jaw, in violation of Rule 8 of said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 10. 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. DeEcIsIoN AND ORrDER 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, WINTER PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL. 175 171 Decision and Order makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Winter Products, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its office and principal place of business located at 49 West 387th Street in the city of New York, State of New York.

Respondents Jack Winter, Daniel Levy, Charles Miranda and Mark Benson 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 It is ordered, That respondents Winter Products, Inc., a corporation, and its officers and Jack Winter, Daniel Levy, Charles Miranda and Mark Benson, 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 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 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 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.

3. Failing to set forth the term “Dyed Mouton Lamb” on labels in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the term “Dyed Lamb.” Decision and Order 66 F.T.C.

4. Failing to set forth the term “Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb” on jabels in the manner required where an election is made to use that term in lieu of the term “Dyed Lamb.” 5. Failing to set forth on labels the item number or mark assigned to a fur product. .

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 of 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 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.

3. Representing, directly or by implication, on any invoice relating to any fur product that such fur product contains the fur of a fur-bearing animal when the fur product does not contain the fur of such fur-bearing animal. 4, Using the term “Persian” or any other words or terms of similar import on invoices in such a manner as to imply that the product contains the fur of the Persian Lamb when such fur product does not contain the fur of the Persian Lamb. 5. Failing to set forth the term “Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb” in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words “Dyed Lamb.” 6. Setting forth the term “Blended” or any term of like import as part of the information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe pointing, bleaching, dyeing, tip-dyeing or otherwise artificial coloring of furs contained in fur products.

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 the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-cdyed, or otherwise artifically colored.

8. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

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

ATLANTIC SCHOOL, INC., ET AL. 177 171 Complaint It is 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.