Tobias, Fischer & Co. Inc.

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

IN THE :1\1.-\ TTER OF TOBIAS, FISCHER & CO. INC., ET AL. CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FED- ERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1317. Complaint, A)JJ'i.l3, 196B-Decision, AprilS 1965 Consent order requiring a New York City corporation which auctions merchandise to cease falsely advertising, deceptively invoicing, and misbranding its fur products.

COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions or the, Federal Trade, C.ommission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and by virtue of the auth.ority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Tobias, Fischer & Co., Inc., a, corporation, and Charles H. Tobias, individually and as an officer .of said corpol ation, and ,J ac.k C. Stein, individually and as rur adviser to Tobias, Fisc.her & Co., Inc.. a corporation, and Charles 1-1:. Tobias, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the, provisions of said Acts a,nd the Rules and Regulations pr.omulgatedunc1er the Fur Products Labeling . cL and it appearing to the Commissi.on that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in thatrespeet as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Tobias, Fischer & Co. Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue or the laws of the State of New York.

Respondent Charles H. Tobias is the sole .officer of the corporation and respondent J aci\: C. Stein is fur adviser to the corporation and Charles H. Tobias.

Respondent Tobias, Fischer & Co., Inc., is an auctioneer of all types of merchandise including fur products. Charles H. Tobias controls formulates and directs the acts, practices and policies or the corporation and acts under the advice of Jaek C. Stein in marketing fur prodis 6ucts. The .office and principal place of business of the resriondents East 46th Street, New York, New. York.

PAR. 2. Respondents a,re now, and for some time last past have be€m 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 hase sold, advertised offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whale or in part of furs which have been shipped and TOBIAS FISCHER & CO. , INC. , ET AL. 559 55S Complaint received in commerce, as the terms "commerce fur" and " fur prod-, ucu' 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 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 pro duets as U. A. when the country of origin of such furs was in fact, Finland.

PAR. 4. CerUlin 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 Ad and in the manner and form prescribed by the R.ules and Regulations promulgated there,under. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, ,",ere fur products with labels which failed:

1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in any such furproduct. ' 2. To show the name, or other identification issued and registered by the Commission, of one or more of the persons who manufactured any such fur product for introduction into commerce, introdueec1 it into commerce, sold it in commerce, advertise,d or offered it for sale, in commerce, or transported or distributed it in commerce. PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in yiolatioll of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that tlley "ere not labeled in accordance with the R.ules 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 "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 R,ule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) Information required under Section 4 (:2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Re-gulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in handwriting on labels, in violation of Rule 29 (h) 01 said Rules and Regulations.

(d) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder' 560 FEDERAL TRADE CO:\:LMISSION DECISIONS Complaint 73 F.

was not set forth in the required sequence, in violation of Rule 30 of the said Rules and Regulations.

( e) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the H,llIes and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth sepa,rately on In bels "with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs, in violation of R.ule 36 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products ,were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondents in that they 'Y81'0 not invoiced as required by Section ;) (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under such Act. Among such falsely and decepti,-eJ~' invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products covered by invoice,s ,which failed to show the true animal name of the fur used in any such fur product. PAR. 7. Certain of said fur products II-ere falsely and deceptively invoiced with respect to the name of the country of origin of importd furs used in such fur products, in vjoIntion of Section t) (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such falsely and decepti,-el;" inyoicec1 fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products invoiced to 811011- the, name of the countrv of ori!tln of fllrs contninC'C1 in such :fur p1'oc1l1cl"s ;15 S,yec1en lI'hen the country of origin or such furs \yas, in fact Fin1nnc1. L.- \R. 8. Certain of said fur products II-ere fn Isely and clereptiveJy invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in t hr..t they were not invoiced in accordance ,,-ith the. Rnles and Hep:uhtlons promulgated there-uncle.!' inasl11nch as the term " natu!':! F 'Tag not nsec1 on in,-oices to describe fur products ,which were not polnted, bleached dyed, tip-dyed or other\'ise artificially colored, in ,-iobtion of Rule 19 (g) of said R.ules and Regulations.

PAR. D. Certain of said fur products "ere, falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Lahelinp: 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 (n) of the said Act. Among and included in the aforesaid advertisements bnt not limited thereto, were achertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the New York Times, a ne~yspaper published in ill(' city of Xew York, State of Ne"IT York and h:living a II-ide circuhtlon in Xe" York and other States of the United States.

Among such false and clecepti,-e nd,-ertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements \,which failed: 1. To show the. true animal name of the fur used in ::m~~ such fur product.

,, . .

TOBIAS FISCHER & CO. , INC. , ET AL. 561 558 Complaint 2. To show that the fur contained in such products was bleached dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, ",hen such was the fact. 3. To shm.y the country of origin of imported furs contained in such fui' products.

PAR. 10. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that certain of said fur products "-ere falsely or deceptively identified with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which the saiel fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section ;) (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labe.ling Act.

Among such falsely and deceptively advertised fur products, but not limited thereto were, fur products achertised as ;'BroacltaiF there, by implying that the fui'S conta.inec1 thel' ein ,were entitled to the designation "Broadtail Lamb hen in truth and in fact, the furs contained therein Ifere not entitled to such designation. P.:-\.R. 11. By means of the aforesaid aclyertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products with respect to the name of the country of OliQ'jn of furs contained in such Iur products, in violation of Section i5 (a) (;J) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such falsely and deceptively ach-ertised fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products advertised to show the country of Ol'jgin of furs contained in such fur products as "li A. ,,"hen the country of ori!tln of such furs ,yas. in fact. Finland. PAR. 12. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein respondents 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 Heguktions promulgated thereunder inasmuch as the term "naturar~ was not used to describe fur products ,which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule ID(g-) of the said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 1:3. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regu.lations promulgated tllel'el1nder and constitute Unftlir methods of competition and unfair and clecepti,-e acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. Decision and Order 73 F.

DECISION AXD Onder The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the re,spondents named in the caption hereof, and the respondents having been furnished thereafter with copy of a draft of complaint which the, Bureflu of Textiles and Furs proposed to present to the. Commission for its consideration and which if issued by the Commission, would charge respondents "ith violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an adn1ission 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 flnd does not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as alleged in such complaint and waivers and other provisiOlls as required by the Commission Rules; and The Commission having thereflfter considered the matter and having determined that it had reason to believe that the, respondents have violated the said A. , 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 8 2. 34 (b) of its Rules. the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Tobias, Fischel' &. Co., Inc., is fl corporation organized, existing and doing business lmder and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its office a.nd principal place of business located at 6 East 46th Street, New York, New York. Respondent Charles H. Tobias is the sole officer of the corporation and respondent Jack C. Stein is fur adviser to the, corporation and Charles H. Tobias. Their address is the same as that of said corporation.

2. The Federal Trade Commission llfls jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the. public interest.

ORDER It 18 ordered That respondents Tobias, Fischer &: Co., Inc., a corporation, find its officers, and Charles H. Tobias, individually :11'ld as TOBIAS FISCHER & CO. INC. , ET AL. 563 G58 Decision and Order an offieer of said corporation, and Jack C. Stein, fur adviser to the said corporation and to Charles 1-1. Tobias, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, direct.ly or through any corporate, or other devic.e, in connection with the introduction, into commerce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale in c.commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce, of any fur product; or 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 flll' ~' and '; fnr product'~ are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do fortlnrith c.ease and desist from: A. l\Iisbranding any fur product by:

1. Failing to affix a labe.l to such fur pro duet 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.

2. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying any such fur product as to the country of origin of furs eontained in such fur Droduct.

3. Setting' forth information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labe,ling Act and the R.ule,s and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbre:dated form on a label affixed to such fur prod uct.

4. Failing to set forth the term "natural as part of the information required to be disclosed on a label under' the Fur Products Labeling Act and the R.ules and ReguJatiol1s promulgated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointed, bJeachecL 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 R.egulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting 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 R,ule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

7. Failing to set forth separately on a . la.bel attached to such fur product composed of two or more sections containing different animal fur the infol'Jl1ntion required under Sec- 564 FEDERAL TRADE CO1.iM:ISSION DECISIONS Decision and Order 73 F, tion 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to the fur comprising each section.

B. False.!y 01' deceptively invoicing any fur product by: 1. Failing to furnish an in voice, as the. term "in voice:: is defined in the Fui:' Products Labeling Act, sho"ing in 'words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each or the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. :JUisrepl'esenting in any mal11wr: 011 an invoice directly or by implication, the country of origin of the fur contained in such fur product.

3. Failing to set forth the term "natural' as part of the to be disclosed on an invoice under the information l'ecmil'pd.L Fur Products Labeling!!' , ct and the Rules and Re!!'ulations promulgated thereunder to describe. such fur proclurt "which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artiii., cially colored.

C. Falsely or deceptively nchel'tising any fur product through the use of any nch-erti~ement, representation: public. announcement or not" ice ",which is intended to aid, promote 01' assist, directiy or indirectly, in the sale, 01' offering for sa Ie or nny such fnr product, and \\which:

1. Fails to set forth in ,yorcls and figures plainly legible nil thc 1nformntion required to be c1isclo:~ec1 by each of the subsections of Section 5( a) or the Fur Products Labeling :2. Falsely 01' c1ecepti,- ely identifies ally such fur product -\ct.. as to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product. 3. Falsely or deceptively identifies any fur product ns to the country of origin of fur contained in such fur product. 4. Fails to set forth the term "natural as pent of the information required to be disclosed in advertisements under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regl11ations prom u Igated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointeel, bleached: dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise: artiiically colored.

It ,is flll'thel' O'dlel'erl That the respondents herein shan, 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 'Thich they have complied with this order. GUILFORD INDUSTRIES, INC. 565 Complaint