Smartshire Coat, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF SMARTS HIRE COAT, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COl\fMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1304. Complaint, Mar. 4, 1968-Deci,sion, Mar. -9, 1968 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturing furrier to cease misbranding and falsely invoicing its fur products. CO1\-IPLAINT 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 Smartshire Coat, Inc., a corporation, and Julius Weinberg and Sa,muel Plotkin, individually and as officers 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 public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

p AR..~GR..~PH. 1. Respondent Smartshire Coat, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under,r and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondents Julius Weinberg and Samuel Plotkin are officers 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 office and principal place of business located at 265 'Vest 37th Street, New York New Yark.

Complaint 73 F.

PAR. 2. Respondents are now, and for some time last past have been, engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in the manufacture for introduc.tion into eommerc.e, 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 "hole or in part of furs "which have been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms "commerce fur" and " fur produc.t" are, defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 3. Certain of said fur products "ere misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled to show that fur contained therein was natural, when in fact such fur was pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Section 4 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 4. Certa-in of said fur products "ere 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 lnanner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Among such misbranded fur products, but not 1limited thereto "ere fur produc.ts 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 fac.t. PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were fa-lsely 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 a-animal name of the furs used in any such fur product. PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoice,d in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Aet in that they were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: 1. The term "natural" was not used on invoices to describe fur products which were not pointed, ble,aehed, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violat.ion of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Reg- 2. Required item numbers we.re not set forth on invoices, in violationulations.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 SMARTSHIRE COAT, INC. , ET AL. 461 459 Decision and Order Rules and Regulations prOlllulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in eommeree under the Federal Trade Commission Aet. DECISION AND ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an inve,stigation of certain acts and practices of the respondents named in the caption hereof, and the respondents having been furnished thereafter with copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Textiles and Furs proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and w hieh if issued by the Commission, would charge respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Ad; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreeme,nt containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the a.foresaid draft of complaint, 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 alleged in such complaint, and waivers and other provisisons as required by the Commission s Rules; and The Commission having thereafter considered the matter and having determined that it had reason to believe that the respondents have violated the said Acts, and that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, and having thereupon accepted the executed eonsent agreement and placed such agreement on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in S 2.34 (b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Sma-rtshire Coat, 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 265 West 37th Street, New York, New York. Respondents Julius vVeinberg and Samuel Plotkin are officers of said corporation and their address is the same as that of saideorporation.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 73 F.

tis onle-red That respondents Smart-shire Coat, Inc., a corporation and its officers, and Julius vVeinberg and Samuel Plotkin, 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 introduetion, into eomnlerCB, or the sale, advertising or offering ror sale in eomn1erce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce, of any fur product; or in connection with the Hranufacture for sale, sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution, of any fur procluet which is made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms "eommeree " "fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist frolll:

A. l\1:isbranding any fur product by:

1. Representing, directly or by implication, on a label that the fur contained in such fur product is natural when such fur is pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artifi- cia.lly colored. 2. Failing to affix a labe.l to such fur product showing in words and in figures plainly legible all or the information required to be discJosecl by each of the subsections of Seetion 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing any fur product by: 1. Failing to fllrnish 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) or the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. 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 Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

3. Failing to set forth on an invoice the item number or mark assigned to such fur product.

It is jrnrtlwr onlered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon thelll of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner a.nd form in which they have complied with this order. CARPET YARN MILLS, INC., ET AL. 463 Complaint