Max Adelman Furs, Inc.

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

IN THE ~IATI'ER OF ~IAX ADEL~IAN FURS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COl\Il\IISSION AND THE YGR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 0-1331. Oom,pla-int, May 1968-Deaision, May i, 1968 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturing furrier to cease misbranding and falsely invoicing its fur products. CO:l\IPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Pro duets Labeling Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that :M:ax Adelman Furs, Inc., a corporation, and :Max Adelman, individually and as an officer of said corporation, hereina.after 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 resl)f~t thereof \voulc1 be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent ~fax Adelman Furs, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue, of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondent :Max Adelman is an officer of the said corporate respondent. He formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are manufacturers of fur products ,,"ith their office and principal place of business located at 330 Seventh A venue N ew 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 hc1vertisec1, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of furs \which have been ~hipped and received in commerce as the terms "commrce. fur and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. ,, 836 FEDERAL TRADE COlVLvIISSION DECISION& (Complaint 73 F.

P .AR. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled to show that fur contained therein as natural, when in fact such fur was pointed, bleached, dY0d, tipdyed, or otherwise artifically colored, in violation of Section 4 (1) 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. AJ.110ng such misbranded fur products, hut not limited thereto, were fur products with labels which failed to disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise arti:Heally colored ,y hen 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 accord1a.nce with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

(a) The term "blended" was used on labels as part of the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Ln.beling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated there1.1llder to describe the pointing, bleaching, dyeing, tip-dyeing~ or othenyise artifical coloring of furs, in violation of Rule 19 (f) 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 artifically colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder \vas not set forth in the required sequence, in violation of Rule 30 of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products "ere 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:

1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in any such fur product.

2. To disclose that the fur c.contained in the fur produc.t was bleached dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact. , MAX ADELMAN FURS , INC. , ET AL. 837 835 Complaint 3. To show the country of origin of imported fur used in any such fur product.

PAR. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced 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 ill violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

An10ng such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products which were invoiced as "Sable. when, in fact, the fur contained in such products was not ;' Sable." PAR. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that said fur products "ere invoiced to sho\V that the fnl' contained therein "Was natural, when in fact such fur \Vas pointed bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 9. Certain of said fur products \Were falsely and deceptively invoiced with respect to the name of the country of origin of imported 5 (b) (2) of thefurs used in such fur products, in violation of Section Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but. not limited thereto ere fur procluets invoiced to shmv the. name of the country of origin of furs contained in such fur products as the rnited States when the country of origin of such furs was, in fact, Norway. m. 10. Certain of said fur products \were falsely and decepti,-ely invoieecl in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Aet in that they were not invoieed in aeeordanee with the Rules and Regulations pronlulgate,d thereunder in the following respeets: (a) The term "blended" \Vas used on invoices as part of the information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Pro duets Labeling Act and the R,ules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe the pointing, bleaching, dyeing, tip-dyeing or otherwise, arti- 19 (f) of said Rules andficial coloring of furs, in violation of Rule Regulations.

(b) The term "natural" was not used on invoices to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otlwl'wise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules cllld Regulations.

PAR. 11. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Ad and the Hules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce undet the Federal Trade Commission Act. 838 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS. Decision and Order 73 F.

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 ir issued by the Commission, would charge respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act; and The respondents and counsel ror the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a eol1sent order, an admission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional racts set rorth in the aforesaid draft of complaint~ a statement that the signing or 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 sRules; and The Commission hfwing 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 consent agreement and placed such agreement on the public record ror a period of thirty (30) days, now in rurther conformity with the procedure prescribed in S 2.34 (b) or its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the rollowing jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent l\lax Adelman Furs, Inc., is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws or the State or New York, with its office and principal place or business located at 330 Seventh A venue, New York, New York. respondent l\Iax Adelman is an officer of said corporation and his address is the same as that or said corporation. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction or the subject matter or this proceeding and of the respondents~ and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER I tis onlered That respondents l\lax Adelman Furs, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and :Max Adelman, individually and as an officer or said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection \with the introduction, or manuracture for introduction, into COffi- MAX ADELMAN FURS, INC. , ET AL. 839 835 Decision and Order merce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale in eol11merce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce, of finy 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 "hole 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. ~Iisbranding any fur product by:

1. Representing, directly or by implication, on a label that the fur contained in any fur product is natural when such fur is pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored. 2. Failing to affix a label to such fur product showing in words and in figures plainly legible all of the information required to be disclosed by ea.c.h or the subsections of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Ln beling Act.

3. Setting forth the term "blended" or any term of like import on a label as part of the information required under Section 4: (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe the, pointing, bleaching, dyeing, tip-dyeing, or otherwise artificial coloring ,of furs contained in such fur product. 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 Rules and Regulations pro- 11lulgated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointeel, bleHche.d, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

5. Failing to set forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the R.ules and Regulations promulgated the.reundei' on 2t label in the sequence required by Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing any fur product by: 1. Failing to furnish an invoice, as the term "invoice" is defined in the Fur Proc1acts 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 on an invoice pertaining to such fur product any fa,lse or deceptive information with respect to the /.

840 FEDERAL TRADE COMl\lission DECISIONs, Order 73 F.

name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in such fur product.

3. Representing, directly or by implication, on an invoice that the fur contained in such fur product is natural when such fur product is pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

4. nlisl'epl'esenting in any manner, on an invoice, directly or by implication, the country of origin of the fur contained in such fur product.

5. Setting forth the term "blended" or any term of like import as part of the information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe the pointing, bleaching, dyeing, tip-dyeing, or otherwise artificial coloring of furs contained in such fur products. 6. 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 the R,ules and Regulations promulgnted thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

It is further ordered That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute. H, copy of this Order to each of its operating divisions. 1 tis fu-ither oi'deTecl That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon theln of this order, file with the Com- Inission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in "which they have complied with this order. IN THE nlATTER OF A:NIERTCAN l\fotors CORPOR.ATION ET AL.

ORDER OF DISi\IISSAL, ETC., IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED "VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 ( a ) OF THE CLA YTOX ACT Docket ,35"' Col/lplctint, Jan. 1959-Decision, May 8, 1968 Order setting aside, pursuant to it decision of cnited States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 384 F. 2d 247, an amended order dated October 7, 1965, 68 C. 87, and dismissing the complaint therein. ORDER DIS::\IISSIXG CO:\IPLAIXT Respondent having filed in the United States Court of Appe,als for the Sixth Circuit a petition to review and set aside the amended order AMERICAN SAVINGS LIFE INSURANCE CO. ET AL. 841 840 Complaint to cease and desist issued herein on October 7, 1965 (68 F. C. 87) ; and that court on September 29, 1967 (8 S.&D. 556), having issued its opinion and order remanding the proceeding to the Federal Trade Commission for dismissal of the co111plaint; nd the Supreme Court having denied a petition for a writ of certiorari on April 8, 1968, 390 S. 1012;

It is opde'l'ed That the complaint in this matter be, and it hereby , dismissed.