L. J. Freiman Inc

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

IN THE MATTER OF L. J. FREIMAN 11\C. ET AL CONSE:-T ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIOI\ AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1200. Complaint, April lV6?-Deci sion, Ap1"il, 1967 Consent order requiring a Xe,v York City manufacturing furrier to cease misbranding and falsely invoicing its fur IJ)'oducts. IPLAI:-T Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Produds Labeling Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that L. .T. Freiman, Inc., a corporation and Louis J. Freiman, Joseph Freiman and Harold Freiman individually and as offcers of 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 jJublic interest hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

L. J. FREIMAN , INC. , ET AL. 695 694 Complaint PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent L. J. Freiman, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the State of New York.

Respondents Louis J. Freiman, Joseph Freiman and Harold Freiman are offeers of 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 350 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York.

PAR. 2. Respondents are now, and for some time last past have been, 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 'j 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 to show that fur contained therein was natural, when in fact such fur ,vas pointed hleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Section 4 (J) 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) 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 jJroducis with labels which failed to disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, tip-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 Hegulations 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 Hule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

(g) 696 FEDERAL TRADE cmnIlssJO:\ DECISJOKS Decision and Order 71 F. (b) 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. (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. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products covered by invoices which failed to show the true animal name of the furs used in any such fur product.

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 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 nnatura1" ,vas 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 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.

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 L. J. FREIMAN , INC. , ET AL. 697 694 Order The respondents and counsel for the Commission 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 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 said Acts, and having determined that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, hereby issues its complaint, accepts said agreement, makes the follmving jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent L. J. Freiman, 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 350 Seventh Avenue ew York ew York. Respondents Louis .r. Freiman, Joseph Freiman and Harold Freiman are offcers of said corporation and their address is the same as that of said corporation 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 L. J. Freiman, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and Louis J. Freiman, Joseph Freiman and Harold Freiman, 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 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 any fur product by:

1. Representing directly or by implication on a label that the fur contained in such product is natural when Order 71 F.

the fur contained therein is pointed, bleached, dyed tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored. 2. Failing- to affx a label to such fur product 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. Failing to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information required to bc disclosed on a label under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

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 label in the sequence required by Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

5. Failing to set forth on a label 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 legible 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 information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

3. Failing to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on an invoice under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulatioj1s promulgated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored. It is turther 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. A. GREENHOUSE, IKC. , ET AL. 699 Complaint