Gem Furs, Inc

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

IN THE MATTER OF GEM FURS, INC., ET AI, CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION O!' Tile FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket (,-1480. Compluint, Jan. 1969-Decision, Jan. ) 1969 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturing furrier to cease misbranding, falsely invoicing, and deceptively guaranteeing its fur products.

148 Complaint COMPLAINT 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 Gem Furs, Inc., a corporation and Henry Kreidman, individually and as an offcer 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 ARAGRAI'II 1. Respondent Gem Furs, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondent Henry Kreidman is an offcer of the 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 with their offce and principal place of business located at 333 Seventh A venue, New York, New York.

PAR. 2. Respondents are now and for some time last past have been engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in 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 fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 3. Certain oJ said fur products were misbranded in that they. were falsely and ceptively labeled to show that fur eontained therein was natural, when in fact such fur was pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Section 1 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were no 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.

Decision and Order 75 F.

Among such misbranded fur products, but 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 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 Products Labeling Act. PAR. 7. Respondents furnished false guaranties that certain of their fur products were not misbranded, falsely invoiced or falsely advertised when respondents in furnishing such guaranties had reason to believe that fur products so falsely guarantied would be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in commerce, in violation of Section 10 (b) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 8. The aforcsaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thcreunder and constitute unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under 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 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 and the Fur Products Labeling Act; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an ad- 148 Decision and Order mission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts sct forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settement 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 executcd 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 S 2.:i4(b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and entcrs the following order:

1. Respondent Gem Furs, Inc. , is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 333 Seventh Avenue, city of New York, State of New York.

Respondent Henry Kreidman is an offcer of said corporation and his address is thc 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.

ORTJER It is oTde'red That respondents Gem Furs, Inc. , a corporation and its oilcers, and Henry Kreidman, individually and as an offcer 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 introduction, intl) commerce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale 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 dc-fined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

Decision and Order 75 F.

A. Misbranding fur products by:

1. Representing, directly or by implication, on labels that the fur contained in any such fur product is natural when the fur contained therein is pointed bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored. 2. Failng to affx labels to fur products 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 fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices, as the term "invoice is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, sbowing 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 invoices that the fur contained in the fur products is natural when such fur is pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed, or otherwise artificially colored. It is furthe1' order-ed That respondent Gcm Furs, Inc. , a corporation, and its offcers, and Henry Kreidman, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, 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 ordered That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its 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. LEDFORD CHENILLE CO. 153 Complaint