Dumas of California, Inc.

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

In Tee Marrer or DUMAS OF CALIFORNIA, 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-814. Complaint, dug. 18, 1964—Decision, Aug. 18, 1964 Consent order requiring manufacturing furriers in Los Angeles to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by labeling and invoicing artificially colored furs as natural, failing to disclose on labels and invoices that certain furs were dyed or bleached, failing to show ou invoices the true animal name of fur and the country of origin of imported furs, and failing in other respects to comply with requirements of the Act.

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 Dumas of California, Inc., a corporation and Mildred Bass and Stanley D. Malkin, individually and as officers 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:

Paracrary. 1. Respondent Dumas of California, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California.

Respondents Mildred Bass and Stanley D. Malkin are officers of the corporate respondent and formulate, direct and control the acts, DUMAS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., ET AL. 547 546 Complaint practices and policies of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are manufacturers of fur products with their office and principal place of business located at 982 South Hill Street, Los Angeles, California.

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 to show that fur contained therein was natural, when in fact such fur was pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed 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 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 disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored when such was the fact. 3. To show the country of origin of the imported furs contained in the fur product.

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, Decision and Order 66 F.T.C.

bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 7. 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 Produets Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth on invoices in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule + of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 8 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 Orper The Commission having heretofore determined to igsue 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 adinission 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 im such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission's tules; 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 Dumas of California, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, with its office and principal place of business located at 932 South Hill Street, in the city of Los Angeles, State of California.

DUMAS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., ET AL. 549 546 Decision and Order Respondents Mildred Bass and Stanley D. Malkin 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 ft is ordered, That respondents Dumas of California, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Mildred Bass and Stanley D, Malkin, individually and as officers of the 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 whoie 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. Representing directly or by imphcation on labels that the fur contained in any fur product is natural when the fur contained therein is pointed, bleached, dved, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

2. Failing to affix labeis 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: 1. Failing to furnish invoices as the term “invoice” is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act 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, 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.

3. Setting forth information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form. Complaint 66 F.T.C.

4, Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to fur products.

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.