Bruns-Travers Furs

Text (OCR of the scan; may contain errors)

ROBERT F. BRUNS TRADING AS BRUNS-TRAVERS FURS

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS

Dachket C-S843. Complaint, Oct. 5, 1964—Decision, Oct. 5, 1964 Consent order requiring an Omaha, Nebr., furrier to cease mishbranding and falsely invoicing his fur products.

CompLaINtT 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 Robert F. Bruns, an individual, trading as ° Bruns-Travers Furs, hereinafter referred to as respondent has 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:

Paracraru 1. Respondent Robert F. Bruns is an individual trading as Bruns-Travers Furs.

The respondent is a retailer of fur products with his office and principal place of business located at 1825 Farnam, Omaha, Nebraska.

Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondent. has been and is 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 has 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 not labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the manner and form described by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. 942. Complaint Among such misbranded fur products, but not. limited thereto, were fur products without labels and fur products with labels which failed to show that the fur product contained or were composed of used fur, when such was the fact.

Par. 4. 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:

(a) The disclosure “secondhand,” where required, was not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 23 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) 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.

(c) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in handwriting on labels, in violation of Rule 29(b) of said Rules and Regulations.

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

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 and deceptively invoiced fur products, but. not hmited 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 product was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

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

Par. 6. 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 Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth on invoices in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) Phe term “Persian Lamb” was not set forth on invoices in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule § of said Rules and Regulations.

944 |

(c) 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.

(d) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule £0 of said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 7. Respondent 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 which have been shipped and received in commerce, has misbranded such fur products by substituting thereon, labels which did not conform to the requirements of Section 4 of the Fur Products Labeling Act, for the labels affixed 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. 8. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent, 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. Decisi0oN AND ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondent named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondent 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 respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondent 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 respondent 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, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Robert F. Bruns is an individual trading as Bruns- 942 - Decision and Order.

Travers Furs with his office and principal place of business located at 1825 Farnam, Omaha, Nebraska.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent, and the proceeding is inthe public interest.

ORDER

It is ordered, That respondent Robert F. Bruns, an individual, trading as Bruns-Travers Furs, or under any other trade name, and rvespondent’s representatives, agents ind 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 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. 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.

2. Failing to disclose that fur products contain or are composed of secondhand used fur.

3. 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 affixed to fur products.

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

5. Failing to set forth on labels the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

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

3. 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.”

4, 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.

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

It is further ordered, That respondent Robert F. Bruns, an individual trading as Bruns-Travers Furs or under any other trade name and respondent’s representatives, agents and employees, clirectly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introducing, selling, 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 affixed to such fur product pursuant to Section 4 of the Fur Products Labeling Act, labels which do not conform to the requirements of the ateresaid Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

It is further ordered, That the respondent. herein shail, within sixty

(60) days after service upon him of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he has complied with this order.