H. Appel & Sons, Inc., et al.

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

form in ,,-hieh they have complied ,,-ith this order. Ix TI-IE J\IATTER 1-1. ..-\.PPEL 8: SONS, I?\C. , ET ~\..L, COXSEXT ORDER , ETC., IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED YIOL\TION OF THE FEDER..~L TRADE C03DIISSIOX AXD THE rrn PRODUCTS L"\BELIXG ACTS Docket C-1309. Complaint, J1ar, lrJIJ8-Dccision, J101'. ?, 19(;8 CCnl:,ent orcler requiring a :\'E'\\' York City \\'hole'::.;ale 11nc1 retail furrier to CE.';1i:'E' mi::.;branch1ing-, (lecepti yely a c1 yerti::.;ing: find falseJ y guflra 11 r-cei ng- its fur products, COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commi~sion Act and the Fur Products Labeling' Act. and b-v virtue of the autho~'ity yestec1 in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having' reason to believe that H. Appel 8: Sons, Ine., (1, corporation, and Pnul Toporofl indiyic1ually and as an offieer of said corporation, hereinafter refer'l'ec1 to as respondents, ha,'e. violated the provisions of saiel Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Product::: Labeling: lct, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof "\yould be. in the public interest, hereby iSSll'22 its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follo"\ys: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent H. Appel 0: Sons~ Inc., is a corporation onwnized. existing' and doing business under' and by, irtne of the la"\yS of the State of ?\ ew York.

; ., , ., H. APPEL & SONS , IKC. , ET AL. 4:83 482 Colllplaint Respondent Paul Toporoff is an ofiicer of the corporate respondent. lie formulates, directs and controls the policies, acts and practices of said corporation including those hereinafter set forth. Respondents are ,wholesalers and retailers of fur products with their office and principal place of business located at 116 "'Vest :?9th Street ~ e"\y York, New York.

-iR. :2. Respondents are now~ and for some time last past have been engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in the sale, ad,-ertising, and offering for sale in commerce; and in the transportation and (listribution in commerce, of fur products; and have sold, ach-ertised, offered for sale, transported and c1i~~tributed fur lwoducts which have been made in Ivhole or in part of furs which have been shipped andrecei,-ed in commerce, as the terms ;;commerce fur" and ;; fur producr' are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAIL :3. Certain of said fur products "\"ere misbranded in that they "ere falsely and deceptively labeled or othenyise falsely 01' deceptiycly 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 4: (1) of the Fur Products Labeling ~\..ct.

~ "\"ere Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto fur products which were labeled as ;'Opossum ': w" hen fur contained in such fur products was, in fact, "Australian Opossum. Also among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, "\were fur products labeled as '; Broadtail' thereby implying that the furs contained therein were entitled to the designation (;Broadtail Lambt "\yhen in truth al1(1 in fact, the fllrs contained therein ,were not entitled to such designation.

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 fmd in the manner D.nc1 form prescrilwc1 by the Rules and Rep;ulations promulgated thereunder. Anlong such misbranded fur productsj hut not limited thereto, ,were 1111' products "\with labels ,,-which ff1.ilec1 : 1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in such fnrproducts. 2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur products "\,as bleached, dyed. or ot herwise arti nclaJly colored. "\"hen such "as the fact. 3. To show ,that the fur products "ere composed in \"\'hole. or in substantial part of pfi',S, tails~ beUies, or "\yt1ste fm' : when such I'US thefad. ..:

484 :FEDERAL TRADE CO~\IMISSION DECISIONS Colllplain t 73 :IT, T, -:1:, To shmv the Dame, 01' other identification is:~lled and registered by the Commission, of one or more of the persons who manufactured such fur products ror introduction into commerce, introduced them into commerce, sold them in commerce, achertisecl or otIered them for ~~i11e, in commerce, or transported or distributed them in c.commerce. \H. ;\ Certain of said fur products were misbranded in yiolntioll or the Fur Products Labeling' Act in that thew "'ere not labeled in accol'Clance -,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 "-ere not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in yiobtion of Rule 10 (g) or s::tid Rules :111(1 Rep:ulntions, (b) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. find the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not completely set out on one side of labels, in ,-violation of Rule 29 (a) or said Rules and Regulations.

(c) Information required under Section cl(2) of the Fur Products Labeling .Act and the Rule:-:; and Regulations promulgated thereunder nls set forth in hnnchn'iting all labels, in yiolntion of TIu e 20 (b) of sni(l Rules and Regulations.

(c1) InrormHtion required under' Section -:1:(2) of the. Fur Products Labeling Act. and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder ,yas not set forth in the required sequence, in violation or Rule ;10 or said R111esanc1 Regulations.

\lL G. Certflin of said fur products 'H'l' C' falsely find cleceptiyely achcrtisecl in violation of the Fur Products Labeling' Act in that certain advertisements intended to 'aic1 promote Hnrl assist, c1il'ectl~- or indlredl~- ill the s' Hle and oJlel'inp.: Tor sale of such fur pl'OChlcts were not in ficcorclance ,yit h the prm-isions of Section ;) ( a) of the said Act. \..mOlH2: and included in the aforesaid Hchcl'tisements but not limited thereto. ,were (1chertisements or respondents ,yh1('h a ppC'al'ed in issues of the 1\ ew York Post, a ne,yspaper published in the city of N e" York St;1tC' of e\y York and hfixing a ,,-idp, circulation in X e'y York and othpr States or the Gnited States.

\among such false and cletepti,-e .lchertlsemcnts. but not lilr1itecl thereto, were acll-ertisements ,which failed to show that fur products 'yen' composed or used ful'. ,yhen such ,yas the ract. PAn. 7. By means of the aforesaid achel'ti8cments and others sjmibr i!npOl'L and meaning not specifically rererred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptiyeJy advertised fur products in yiolaticn ,, ) ) , , .. H. APPEL & SONS Dic. ET AL. 485 482 Decision und Order of the Fur Products Labeling . ct in that the sa id fur products "\"ere not act,-ertised in accordance ,'with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thercmnc1er in the following respects: (a) Information re(1uir('el under Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the liule's and Regulations promulgated thereunder "\,"its ~et forth in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4: of the said , )C ~11 c.~ ,(1.( (b) The \,e~ll.L"llol1b.tel'ln ;; ll11turar: "\\'n8 not used to describe fur product:=; "\which ere not pointe(l, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or othenyise artificially colored. in yiol'ltion of Bule 10 (g) of the :::nid HlLlu; and Begl1inti011~:. ( c) The c1iscloslll'c ;;Secollcllwlld :: "\"':here 1'(.' qnil'\:\ cl, Wtlf; not ~;et forth, in violation of Rule :2:3 of the said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 8. Hesponclents furnished false guara.nties under section 10 (b) of the Fur Products Labeling .Act "\with respect to certain of their fur products by falsely representing in writing that respondents had a continuing guaranty on me "\with the Feclenll Trade Colll1nission "\yhcn respondents in furnishing such guaranties had reason to belicyp tlwt the fur products so f::llsely gw1l';1ntiell would be introclucecl, sold, transport-eel and distributed in C'om111erce ~ in yiohtioll of Rule 48 ((') of said Rnles ancl llegulations under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Section 10 (b) of saiel..:-\ct.

'.R. D. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Hegulations proll1l11gnted thereunder and constitute unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, unclel' the Fec1erill TrcHle Commission .Act. DECISION AXD ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having. initiated an investi51:ntion of certain acts and practices of the respondents named in the, caption hereof, and the respondents llaying been furnished thereafter "\with copy of a draft of complaint \\'which the. Bureau of Textiles and Fui'S proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and "\which, if issued by the Commission, "\youlc1 charge respondents "\with violation of the Federal Trade Commission . ct and the Fur Products Labeling: Act: and c~ 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 saiel agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute :

486 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIOKS Order 73 F, an admission by respondents that the. law has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and "\,aiyers and other provisions as required by the Commission s Rules; and The Commission having thereafter considered the matter and haying 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 consent agreement and placed such agreement on the public record for a period of thirty (:30) days, nOlv in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in S :2. 34 (b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, mat.-:es the following jurisdictional findings and enters the follo"\Ying order:

1. Respondent II. Appel 8: Son, , Inc" is a corporation organized existid!l' and doing' business under and by virtue of the laws of the Stn.te of X e"\Y York, "\with its ofiice ,wd principal place of business located clt, 11G ,Vest, 29th Street, N e\\' Yor1\: New York. Respondent Paul Toporoff is an officer of said corporation and his address is the same ~8 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 I t is oi'(Ze,' That respondents II. ~\.ppel 8.: Sons, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Paul Toporoff, incli,-idually and as an officer of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connec.tion with the introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce.e, of any fur product; or in connection with the sale, adrertising, otrering 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. ~lisbranding any fur product by:

1. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise. falsely 01' deceptively identifying such fur product as to the name or designation of the a,animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product.

2. Failing to affix a label to such fur product showing in words and in figures plainly legible all of the information H. ~iPPEL & SONS, INC. ~ ET AL. 487 482 Order equirecl to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Sec, 6011 -4: (:2) of the Fur Products La beling Act. a. Failing to set forth the term ;' llaturaF as part of the information required to be disclosed on a label under the Fm: Products Labeling Act and the. Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe such fur product "\,which is not. pointed, blenchec1~ dyed, tip-dyed, or other"Wise artincally colored.

1:. Failing to completely set out information required unde-r Section -4:(~) or the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder on one side of the label affixed to such fur prod uet.

D. Setting forth information required Hnder Section -4: (2) of the Fur Products Labeling ..:-l.C'l and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in hanehniting on a label affixed to such fur product.

G. 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 ni'ol'esaic1 Rules and Regulations.

B. Falsely or deceptively nell-ertising any rur product through the use of . any advertisement, representation, public a1ll1Onnc('ment or notice "Which is intended to aiel, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale, or offering for sale of any fur product and y' which:

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

:2. Sets forth information required under Section ,) (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbre,-iatecl form. :3. Fails to set forth the term ';na.turar~ as part of the information required to be disclosed in ad ,-ertisements Ulldel' the Fur Products Labeling Aet and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artific.ially colored.

4. Fails to disclose that such fur product contains or is composed of secondhand used furs.

Complaint 73 F, t is fu1'thej' o1Ylered That I-I. Appel & Sons, Inc., a corporation and its officers, and Paul Toporoff, individually and as an oilicer of sa.id corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, do forth- \with cease and desist from furnishing' fl false 2:uarantv that any fur product is not misbranded, falsely invoiced or falsely ad vertisec1 when the respondents have reason to belie,-e that such fur product may be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in commerce. t is fut'their' oi'CZej; That. the respondent corporation shall forth- ,with distribute a copy of this Order to each of its operating divisions. t is furthei' oi'Clei'ccl That the, respondents herein shall, ,within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file ,with the Commission a report in "Titing setting forth in detail the manner and form in "\which they have complied "\with this order. I~ THE lil\. TTER OF CITY OF PARIS ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER , ETC. , IN llEGARD TO THE ALLEGED HOLATION OF THE FED- ER.:\.L TRADE CO::.\DIISSION AND THE FLA::.\DL\BLE FABRICS _-\C'IS Docket C-1311). Colilplaint, Jiar. n, 19/J8-Dcci8ioll, JIar. 1, 1968 Consent order requiring a Sall Franci:"co, Calif. , retail department store to cease importing 01' selling any fabric :30 highly flammable as to be clangcrous ",hen \\"orn.

CO::.\IPLAIXT Pursuant to the, prm-isions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Flammable Fabrics Act, and by virtue. of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade. Commission, having reason to believe that City of Paris, a corporation, and George De Bonis, incli- . vidually and as an officer of said corporation, and Suzanne De Tesson individually and as chairman of the. hoard or said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have ,-iolatec1 the. provisions of sflid Acts and the Rules and Regulations promuJgatedunder the Flammable Fabrics 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 follmvs: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent City of Paris is a. corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the. la"s of the State of California. Individual respondents George De Bonis and , , CITY OF PARIS ET AL.

4SS Decision and O1'dll' Suzanne. De Tessoll are respecti,-ely president and chair'mnn of the board of the corporate respondent. They formulate) direct and control the acts, practices and policies of said corporation, The respondents are engaged in the operation of a reta il department store, including the importation and sale of fabrics, "\Tith their notice nc1 principal place of bn:;:iness located at 100 Geary Street San Fran- Clsco nn .ornla.

P.,m. 2. Respondents, now nnd for some time last pn~t~ h,1 H' ~:old and offered for sale. in commerce: ha ' e. imported into the rnited States: and hale introduced, delivered for introduction, transported, and caused to be transported, in commerce: and 11,11"8 tr,l11Spotted and caused to be transported for the purpose of sale or deli n'r~- afrer sa 1e in commerce; as "commerce, '~ is deill1ed in the Flammable F,lbrics Act fabric, as that. term is defined therein, 'Thich fabric "\Tas under Section :I: of the Flammable Fabrics . A,-ct., as amended, so highly~- flammable as to be dangerous "hen "\yorn by indi,'iduals. PAR. 3. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents "\"ere and are in violation of the Flammable Fabrics ~\..ct and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and as such Cole:titute unfair methods of competition and unfair and decepti,-e acts and practices in commerce, ,~:within the intent and meaning of the Fede1:al Trade Commission ~\..ct.

DECISION AXD 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 Fuls proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and "which, if issued by the Commission, "\yould charge respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission ~\..ct and the Flammable Fabrics Act; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission ha "\-ing thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order~ an admission by the respondents of nil 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 respondents that the law has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and other provisions 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 41 8- 845-- 7~---- . , , 490 FEDERAL TRADE COl\IMISSION DECISIONS Order 73 P, have violated the said Acts, and that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect. and having thereupon accepted the executed consent 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 ~ 2.34 (b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the follo,,-ing jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent City of Paris is ,l corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the la"\ys of the State of California, with its office and principal place of business located at 199 Geary Street, San Francisco, California. Respondent George De Bonis is an officer of said corporation and respondent Suzanne De Tesson is the chairman of the board of said corporation. 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 ;8 onlei' That respondents City of Paris, a corporation, and its officers, and George De Bonis, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and Suzanne De Tesson, individually and as chairman of the board of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, Qiredly or through any corporate 01' other device, do forthwith cease and desist from: (a) Importing into the United States; or (b) Selling, offering for sale, introducing, deli yering for introduction, transporting or causing to be. transported, in commerce. as ;;commerce" is defined in the. Flammable Fabrics .. ct: (c) Transporting or causing to be trfinsported. for the purpose of sale or delivery after sale. in commerce any fabric. which, under the provisions of Section -:I: of the said Flammable Fabrics . ct, as amended. is so hiQ'hlv flammable to he dangerous ",hen worn by individuals.

, ",within It is fnJ'thel' olYlered That the. respondents herein shall sixty ((in) days after service upon them of this order, file "\"ith the Commission a report in "writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in ,,~which they hate complied \With this order. ,, ;:, , :\.. . .. PER~IALU~I PRODUCTS COMPANY ET AL. 491 Complaint