S. Schwartz & B. Klein, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF S. SCHWARTZ & B. KLEIN, 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-986. Complaint, Sept. 10, 1965—~Decision, Sept. 10, 1965 Consent order requiring New York City manufacturers of fur products to cease misbranding and falsely invoicing their fur products. 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 S. Schwartz & B. Klein, Inc., a cor- Complaint 68 F.T.C.

poration, and Samuel Schwartz and Benjamin Klein, 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: Paragraph 1. Respondent S. Schwartz & B. Klein, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware. Respondents Samuel Schwartz and Benjamin Klein 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 fur products with their office and principal place of business located at 330 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, 3. 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.

2, To show the country of origin of the imported furs contained in the fur product.

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:

S. SCHWARTZ & B. KLEIN, INC., ET AL. 433 431 Complaint (a) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth on labels in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations. (b) The term “natural” was not used on labels 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.

(c}) 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 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 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) The term “blended” was used 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 contained in fur products, in violation of Rule 19(f) of the said Rules and Regulations.

(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.

Decision and Order 68 F.T.C, (d} Information required under Section 5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth separately on invoices with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs, in violation of Rule 36 of said Rules and Regulations.

(e) Required item:-numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 7. 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 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 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, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent S. Schwartz & B. Klein, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware. Its office and principal place of business is located at 330 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York. Respondents Samuel Schwartz and Benjamin Klein are officers of said corporation and their address is the same as that of said corporation, S. SCHWARTZ & B, KLEIN, INC., ET AL. 435 431 Order 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 S. Schwartz & B. Klein, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Samuel Schwartz and Benjamin Klein, 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, 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. 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. Setting forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form on labels affixed to fur products. 3. Failing to set forth the term “natural” as part of the information required to be disclosed on labels 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.

4. 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 the information required to be disclosed in each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Sylabus 68 F.T.C.

2. 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. , 3. 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 Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe the pointing, bleaching, dyeing, tip-dyeing or otherwise artificial coloring of furs contained in fur products. 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 separately information required under Section 5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs. 6. 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.