M. Hat Shoppe, Inc.

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

IN THE MA TTER OF M. HAT SHOPPE , INC., DOING BUSINESS AS MURIEL HATS ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-I095. Complaint, Aug. 4:, 19GB-Decision, Aug. 4, 1966 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturing and retailng fur. rier to cease misbranding and falsely invoicing its 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 M. Hat Shoppe, Inc., a corporation doing business as Muriel Hats, and Jacob Hirsch and Sadie Hirsch, individuany, and as offcers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated 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 fonows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent M. Hat Shoppe, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondents Jacob Hirsch and Sadie Hirsch are individuals and offcers of the corporate respondent. They formulate, direct MURIEL HATS ET AL. 511 510 Complaint and control the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth. Respondents are manufacturers and retailers of fur products with their principal place of business located at 30 East 60th Street, city of New York, State of 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 Hcommerce 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 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 fnr products have been manufactured, in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto was a fur product which was represented as French Rabbit Chinchi1a, thereby implying that aU or some of the furs contained therein were entitled to the designation Chinchila, when, in fact the fur contained in such product was Rabbit. 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 without labels, and fur products with labels which failed:

1. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificiaUy colored, when such was the fact.

2. To show the name, or other identification issued and registered by the Commission, of one or more of the persons who manufactured such fur products for introduction into commerce, introduced them into commerce, sold them in commerce, advertised Complaint 70 F.

or offered them for sale, in commerce, or transported or distributed them in commerce.

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

PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that labels attached thereto, set forth the name of an animal other than the name of the animal that produced the fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 4 (3) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

PAR. 6. 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. 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 the said Rules and Regulations. 2. The disclosure that fur products were composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, belles, sides, fianks, gins, ears throats, heads, scrap pieces or waste fur, where required, was not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 20 of said Rules and Regulations.

3. Labels affxed to fur products did not comply with the minimum size requirements of one and three-quarters inches by two and three-quarters inches, in violation of Rule 27 of said Rules and Regulations.

4. 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. 5. Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth in the required sequence, in violation of Rule 30 of the Rules and Regulations. 6. Required item numbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 7. 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. PAR. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and decep- MURIEL HATS ET AL. 513 510 Decision and Order tively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder inasmuch as required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 9. 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 Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondents named in the caption hereof, and the respondents having been furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Textiles and Furs proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of al1 the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondents that the law has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission s rules; and The Commission, having reason to believe that the respondents have violated the said Acts, and having determined that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, hereby issues its complaint, accepts said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent M. Hat Shoppe, Inc., doing business as Muriel Hats, is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its principal offce and place of business located at 30 East 60th Street, New York, New York.

Respondents Jacob Hirsch and Sadie Hirsch are offcers of the Decision and Order 70 F.

corporate respondent and their address is the same as that of said 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 M. Hat Shoppe, Inc., a corporation, doing business as Muriel Hats or under any other name, and its offcers, and Jacob Hirsch and Sadie Hirsch, individually and as offcers 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 fnr 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 affx labels to fur products showing in words and in figures plainly legible al1 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 on labels attached to fnr products the name or names of any animal or animals other than the name of the animal producing the fur contained in the fur product as specified in the Fur Products Name Guide, and as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations. 4. Setting forth information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form on labels affxed to fur products.

5. Failng to disclose on labels that fur products are composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails ARLEN TROPHY CO. , INC., ET. AL. 515 510 Syllabus bel1es, sides, flanks, gi1s, ears, throats, heads, scrap pieces or waste fur.

6. Affxing to fur products labels that do not comply Ilth the minimum size requirements of one and three-quarters inches by two' and three-quarters inches. 7. 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 affxed to fur products.

8. Failng to set forth information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder on labels in the sequence required by Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

9. Failng to set forth on labels the item number or mark assigned to each such fur product.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failng to furnish invoices, as the term "invoice" is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, showing in words and figures plainly legible aH the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Failng to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to each fur product.

It is further ordered That the respondents herein shah, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, fie with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order.