Hollywood Novelty Company, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF HOLLYWOOD NOVELTY C02\PANY, INC., ET AL. CONSEKT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE Fer PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1151. Complaint, Dec. 1966-Decision, Dec. 7. 1966 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturer of fur products to cease misbranding and deceptively invoicing its merchandise. 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 Hollywood Novelty Company, Inc. a corporation, and Alfons Schlosser and Sol Portman, individuaIJy and as offcers 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 Hollywood Novelty Company, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business unner and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. Respondents Alfons Schlosser and Sol Portman are offcers the corporate respondent. They 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 offce and principal place of business located at 244 West 27th Street, Kew 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 distrib- HOLLYWOOD NOVELTY CO. , INC. , ET AL. 1721 1720 Complaint uted 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 Jimited thereto were fur products with labels which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in any such such fur product.

2. To show that the fur products 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) 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 "Persian Lamb" was not set forth on labels in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 8 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) Jnformation 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) 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 Fui' 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 any such fur product.

., 1722 FEDERAL made COMMISSION DECISIONS Dccision and Order 70 F. T. 2. To show that the fur products contained or were composed of Llsed fur, \Nhen such ,vas the fad.

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

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced 'with respect to the name or designation of the animal 01' 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, vvere fur proclucts ,vhicn were invoiced as SeaJine" when, in fact, the fur contained in such products was Rabbit."

Also among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products but not limited thereto, were fur products which were hwoiced as Broadtail" thereby implying that the furs conbined therein were entitled to the designation "Broadtail Lamb" when in truth and in fact the furs contained therein were not entitled to such designation.

PAR. 7. Certain of said fur products \were falsely and deceptively invoiced in viobtion of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they \were not invoiced in accordance with the Ht1lrs and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the follo,vh1g respects: (a) The term " Persian Lamb" ,vas not set forth on invoices in the manner required by lenv, in violation of Rule 8 of said Rules and RCR"ulaUons.

(b) The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth on invoices jn the manner required by la\v, in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) 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 respondent.s, as herein alleged, are in violation of the FUJ Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promu1gatcc1 thereunc1eT and constHutc unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commel':e under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION Aid Onder 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 there- HOLLYWOOD NOVELTY CO. , INC. , ET AL. 1723 1720 Decision and Order "iter 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, \vould charge respondents with violation oJ the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Pl'ducts Labeling Act; and The respondents and counsel for the Commissionn having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is Jor settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondents that the law has been violated as alleged in sllch complaint, and waivers and provisions as reqldred by the Commission s rules; and The CommissjoTI, having reason to believe that the respondents have violated 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 jurisdietional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent Hollywood ovelty Company, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of J\ew York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 244 West 27th Street, New York, New York.

Respondents AIJons Schlosser and SoJ Portman are offcers the 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 o?'de1wl That respondents Hollywood Novelty Company, Inc. , a corporation, and its offcers, and Alfons Schlosser and Sol Portman, individually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents ' representatives, agents and employees, directly 01' through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, 01' manufacture for introduction, into commerce, or the saJe, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce, of any fur product; 01' in connection with the manufacture for sale, sale, advertising, offering- for sale, transportation or distribution, oJ any fur product which is made m whole 01' in part of fur which has been Decision and Order 70 F.

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 any fur product by:

1. Failing to affx a label to such fur product showing in words and in figures plainly JegibJe 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 a label affxed to such fur product. 3. Failing to set forth the term "Persian Lamb" on a label in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the word "Lamb. 4. Failing to set forth information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder on a Jabel in the sequence required by Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

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

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing any fur product by: 1. Failing to furnish an invoice, as the term "invoice " is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act showing in words and figures plainly JegibJe all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Setting forth on an invoice pertaining to such fur product 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 Kame Guide, and as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations.

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 "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" in the manner required \',, he1'€ an election is made to use that term instead of the words " Dyed Lamb.

ALASKAN ET AL. 1725 1720 Complaint 5. Failing to set forth on an invoice the item number or mark assigned to such fur product.

It is rurthC1' m'dered That the respondents herein shall, within , fie withsixty (60) days after-service upon them of this order the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order.