Jerome Friedman Furs, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF JEROME FRIEDMAN FURS, INC.

CONSENT ORDER, ET, , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-118.4. Complaint, Oct. 1966-Decision, Oct. , 1966 Consent order requiring a New York City furrier to cease misbranding, falsely invoicing, and falsely advel"tising 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 Jerome Friedman Furs, Inc. , a corporation, 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:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Jerome Friedman Furs, Inc. , is a corporation with its offce and principal place of business located at 5th Avenue at 47th Street, city of New York, State of New York.

Respondent is a retailer of fur products and leases the fur department in E. J. Korvette, a department store located at the same address.

Complaint 70 F. T.

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. 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 of the country of origin of furs contained in such fur products, in violation of Section 4 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products labeled to show the country of origin of furs used in such fur products as " Canada" when the country of origin of such furs was, in fact, Norway.

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled to show that fur cont.ained therein was natural, when in fact such fur was pointed bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violat.ion of Section 4 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that t.hey were not labelcd 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 which failed:

1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur prod uct.

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 that the fur product was composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, beWes, or waste furs when such was the fact.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not la- JEROME FRIEDMAN FURS, INC. 1125 1123 Complaint beled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

(a) 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(9) 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 set forth in handwriting on labels, in violation of Rule 29 (b) 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 not set forth in the required sequence, in violation of Rule 30 of said Rules and Regulations. (d) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth separately on labels 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.

PAR. 7. 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 ,md 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 artiflciaIJy colored, when such was the fact.

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

PAR. 8. Certain of said fur pl"ducts were falsely and deceptively invoiced with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products which were invoiced as Broadtail" thereby implying that the furs contained therein 1126 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIfX DECISIONS Complaint 70 F. T.

were entitled to the designation "Broadtail Lamb" when in truth and in fact they were not entitled to such designation. PAR. 9. 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 "Persian Lamb" was not set forth on invoices in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 8 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) The term "Dyed Mouton Lamb" was not set forth on invoices in the manner required by law, in volation of Rule 9 of said Rules and Regulations.

(d) The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth on invoices in the manner required by law, in volation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

(e) The term "natural" was not used on invoices to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artifically colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 10. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that certain advertisements intended to aid, promote and assist directly or indirectly, in the sale, and offering for sale of such fur products were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 (a) of the said Act.

Among and included in the aforesaid advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondent which appeared in issues of the Daily News, a newspaper published in the city of New York, State of New York.

Among such false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product.

2. To show that the fur contained in the fur product was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

JEROME FRIEDMAK FURS, INC. 1127 1123 Complaint PAR. 11. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively identified with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such falsely and deceptively advertised fur products but not limited thereto, were fur products advertised as "Broadtail" thereby implying that the furs contained therein were entitled to the designation "Broadtail Lamb" when in truth and in fact they were not entitled to such designation. PAR. 12. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that the said fur products were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required, in violation of Rule 10 of the said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The term " natural" was not used to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of the said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 13. Respondent in introducing, selling, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in processing for commerce, fur products; and in sellng, 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 affxed 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. 14. 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.

Decision and Order 70 F.

DECISION 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 Commisssion 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 oforder; 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 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 Jaw 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 ac- . cepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Jerome Friedman Furs, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Kew York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 5th Avew.e and 47th Street, city of New York, State of New York.

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

ORDER It is ordered That respondent Jerome Friedman Furs, Inc. , a corporation, and its offcers, and respondent's representatives agents and 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; 01' 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:

JEROME FRIEDMAN FURS, INC. 1129 1123 Decision and Order A. Misbranding fur products by:

1. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying any such fur product as to the country of origin of furs contained in such fur product.

2. Representing directly or by implication on labels that the fur contained in any fur product is natural when the fur contained therein is pointed, bleached dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored. 3. Failing to affx 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. 4. 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 thc Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

5. 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.

6. Failing 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 aforesai d Rules and Regulations.

7. Failing to set forth separately on labels attached to fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal fur the information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to the fur comprising each section. 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. 2. Setting forth on invoices pertaining to fur products any false or deceptive information with respect to the Dccision and Order 70 F. T. name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in such fur product. 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.

4. Fading 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.

5. Fading to set forth the term "Dyed Mouton Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words "Dyed Lamb. 6. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed BroadtaDprocessed Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words Dyed Lamb.

7. Failing to set forth the term "natmal" 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.

C. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement or notice which is intended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale, or offering for sale of any fur product, and which:

1. Fads to set forth in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Falsely or deceptively identifies any such fur product as to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product. 3. Fads to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words "Dyed Lamb, 4. Fails to set forth the term " natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed in advertisements under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur HOLLYWOOD FILM STUDIOS 1131 1123 Order products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

It is further ordered That respondent Jerome Friedman Furs Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and respondent' s representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, sale, 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 affxed to such fur products pursuant to Section 4 of the Fur Products Labeling Act labels which do not conform to the requirements of the aforesaid Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

It is further ordered That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with this order.