Nat J. Dumbrow Company, Inc.

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

In toe Marrer or NAT J. DUMBROW COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-905. Complaint, June 10, 1965—Decision, June 10, 1965 Consent order requiring New York City manufacturers of wool and fur products, to cease misbranding their fur and wool products, deceptively invoicing its furs, and furnishing false guarantees that its wool products were not misbranded.

3879-702—71——67 Complaint 67 F.T.C.

Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that Nat J. Dumbrow Company, Inc., 2 corporation, and Nat J. Dumbrow, and Harold Dumbrow, individually and as officers of the said corporation, hereinafter referred to as yespondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling «Act and Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, 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:

Paracrapi 1. Respondent Nat J. Dumbrow Company, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. Respondent Nat J. Dumbrow and Harold Dumbrow are officers of the corporate respondent and formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent, including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are manufacturers of wool products and fur products with their office and principal place of business located at 512 Seventh Avenue, 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 to show that fur contained therein was natural, when in fact such fur was pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, 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) NAT J. DUMBROW: CO., INC., ET AL. 1051 1049 Cumplaint 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 without labels, and fur products with labels which failed 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:

(a) 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.

(b) Sample fur products used to promote or effect sales of fur products were not labeled to show the information required under the said Act and Regulations, in violation of Rule 33 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) 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. Respondents failed to invoice fur products with any of the information required under Section 5(b)(1) of the said 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 that 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. Par. 9. Subsequent to the effective date of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, respondents have manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced into commerce, sold, transported, distributed, delivered for shipment, shipped and offered for sale in Complaint 67 E.T.C.

commerce, as “commerce” is defined in said Act, wool products as “wool product” is defined therein.

Par. 10. Certain of said wool products were misbranded by the respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4(a) (1) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or tagged with respect to the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. Among such misbranded wool products but not limited thereto, were interlining materials labeled or tagged by respondents as 85% wool, 15% other fibers, whereas in truth and in fact said products contained substantially different fibers and amounts than as represented.

Par. 11. Certain of said wool products were further misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged or labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto, were certain wool products without labels, and certain wool products containing interlining materials with labels which failed to disclose the percentage of the total fiber weight of the wool products exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5 per centum of the total fiber weight of (1) reprocessed wool; (2) each fiber other than wool if the percentage by weight of such fiber is 5 per centum or more; (8) the aggregate of all other fibers.

Par. 12. Certain of said wool products were misbranded, in vioiation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promul- ‘gated thereunder in that samples, swatches, or specimens of wool ‘products used to promote or effect sales of such wool products in .commerce were not labeled or marked to show the information required under Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in violation of Rule 22 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. Par. 13. Respondents have furnished false guaranties that certain of their wool products were not misbranded, when they knew, or had reason to believe, that the said wool products so falsely guaranteed might be introduced, sold, transported, or distributed in commerce, in violation of Section 9 of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939. Par. 14, The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth above were, and are, in violation of the Wool Products Labeling NAT J. DUMBROW CO., INC., ET AL. 1053 1049 Decision and Order Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, and now constitute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce, within the intent and meaning of 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, the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, 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, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Nat J. Dumbrow Company, 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 512 Seventh Avenue, in the city of New York, State of New York. .

Respondents Nat J. Dumbrow and Harold Dumbrow are officers of the corporate respondent and their address is the same as that of the 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 is ordered, That respondents Nat J. Dumbrow Company, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Nat J. Dumbrow, and Harold Dumbrow, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through Decision and Order 67 FLLC.

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. Representing directly or by implication on labels that the fur contained in any fur product is natural when the fur contained therein is bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

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. 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.

4, Failing to affix labels to sample fur products used to promote or effect sales of 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.

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

It is further ordered, That respondents Nat J. Dumbrow Company, Inc., a corporation and its officers, and Nat J. Dumbrow and Warold Dumbrow, 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 NATIONAL LABOR RECORD 1055 1049 Syllabus the introduction. into commerce, or the offering for sale, sale, transportation, distribution, delivery for shipment or shipment in commerce, of coats or other wool products, as “wool” and “wool product” are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. Misbranding wool products by: :

1. Falsely and deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling or otherwise identifying such products as to the character or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. 2. Failing to securely affix to, or place on, each such product a stamp, tag, label or other means of identification showing in a clear and conspicuous manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(a) (2) of the Weol Products Labeling Act of 1939. 8. Failing to affix labels to sample wool products used to promote or effect sales of wool products showing in words and figures plainly legible ail the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939. B. Furnishing false guaranties that wool products are not misbranded under the provisions of the Wool Products Labeling Act, when there is reason to believe that the wool products so guaranteed will be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in commerce. .

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.