Kim Fashions, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF KI:1 FASHIONS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE FCR PRODUCTS LABELING AND THE WOOL PRODCCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1456'. Complaint, Nov. 20 968-Decision l'v Q'v. 20 196'8 Consent order requiring three affliated New York City clothing manufac KIM FASHIONS, INC., ET AL. 1239 1238 Complaint turers to cease misbranding and falsely invoicing their fur and wool products and falsely guaranteeing their fur products. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Kim Fashions, Inc. , a corporation, Styles By Heidi Inc. , a corporation, and Corette By Heidi, Inc. , a corporation and Hyman Deutchman, individually and as an offcer of said corporations, 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 the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, 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:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondents Kim Fashions, Inc. , Styles By Heidi, Inc., and Corette By Heidi, Inc., are integrated corporations organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the State of New York.

Respondent Hyman Deutchman is an offcer of said corporations. He formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies of the said corporations.

Respondents are manufacturers of fur products and wool products with their offce and principal place of business located at 230 West 38th Street, New York, Kew 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 "commerce iuy 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 was pointed bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in vio- 1240 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIOKS Complaint 74 F.

lation 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.

Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto were fur products with labels that failed to disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact. PAR. 5. 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 disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that said fur products were invoiced to show that the fur contained therein was natural, when in fact such fur was pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur ProductsLabelingPAR. 7. Respondents furnished false guarantiesAct.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 file with the Federal Trade Commission when respondents in furnishing such guaranties had reason to believe that the fur products so falsely guarantied would be introduced, sold, transported and distributed in commerce, in violation of Rule 48 (c) of said Rules and Regulations under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Section 10 (b) of said Act.

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 methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 9. Respondents, now and for some time last past, have manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced into KIM FASHIONS, INC., ET AL. 1241 1238 Decision and Order commerce, sold, transported, distributed, delivered for shipment shipped, and offered for sale in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, wool products as "wool product" is defined therein.

PAR. 10. Certain of said wool products were misbranded by the respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a) (1) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified with respect to the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained therein.

Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto, were coats stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified by respondents as 100% Wool, whereas in truth and in fact, said products contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than represented.

PAR. 11. Certain of said wool products were further misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged labeled, or otherwise identified as required under the provisions of Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto was a wool product with a label on or affxed thereto which failed to disclose the percentage of the total fiber weight of the said wool product, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5 per centum of the total fiber weight, of (1) wool; (2) reprocessed wool; (3) reused wool; (4) each fiber other than wool, when said percentage by weight of such fiber was 5 per centum or more; and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers. PAR. 12. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth in Paragraphs Ten and Eleven above were, and are, in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted and now constitute, unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices, in commerce within the meaning of 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 Decision and Order 74 F. 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, the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939; and 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 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 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 9 2. 34 (b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondents Kim Fashions, Inc., Styles By Heidi, Inc., and Corette By Heidi, Inc. , are corporations organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State New York, with their offce and principal place of business located at 230 West 38th Street, Kew York, New York. Respondent Hyman Deutchman is an offcer of said corporations and his address is the same as that of said corporations. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subj ect matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered That respondents Kim Fashions, Inc. a corpora tion, and its offcers, Styles By Heidi, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and Corette By Heidi, Inc. , a corporation, and its offcers, and Hyman Deutchman, individually and as an officer of said corporations, 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 KIM FASHIONS, INC., ET AL. 1243 1244 Order 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 defir.ed 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 fur product is natural when such fur 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.

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. Representing, directly or by implication, on an invoice that the fur contained in such fur product is natural when such fur is pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed, or otherwise artificially colored. It is further ordered That respondents Kim Fashions, Inc. a corporation, and its offcers, Styles By Heidi, Inc. , a corporation, and its offcers, and Corette By Heidi, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and Hyman Deutchman, individually and as an offcer of said corporations, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device do forthwith cease and desist from furnishing a false guaranty that any fur product is not misbranded, falsely invoiced or falsely advertised when the respondents have reason to believe that such fur product may be introduced, sold, transported, or distributed in commerce.

It is further ordel' That respondents Kim Fashions, Inc. , a corporation, and its offcers, Styles By Heidi, Inc., a corporation 1244 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIOK DECISIONS Complaint 74 F.

and its offcers, and Corette By Heidi, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and Hyman Deutchman, individually and as an offcer of said corporations, 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 offering for sale, sale, transportation, distribution, delivery for shipment or shipment, in commerce, of wool products, as "commerce" and "wool product" are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding such products by: 1. Falsely and deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, or otherwise identifying such products as to the character or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. 2. Failing to securely affx to, or place on, each such product a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification showing in a clear and conspicuous manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939. It is fU1"ther orde," That the respondent corporations forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of their operating divisions.

It is further 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.