Phillip Reiner Furs, Inc

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

IN THE MATTER OF PHILIP REINER FURS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VlOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1557. Complaint, July 19G9-Decision, July, 1969 Consent order requiring a Kcw York City retail furrier to cease misbranding, falsely invoicing, and advertising its fur products. 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 Philip Reiner Furs, Inc., a corporation, and Philip Reiner, 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: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Philip Reiner Furs, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondent Philip Reiner is an offcer of the corporate respondent. He formulates, directs and controls the policies, acts and practices of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are retailers of fur products with their offce and principal place of business located at 305 Seventh Avenue, 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 the sale, advertising, and offering for sale in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution in commerce, of fur products; and have 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 PHILIP REINER FURS, INC. , ET AL.

Complaint commerce " tifur" and ufur 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 or otherwise falsely or deceptively 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 Act.

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 Lamb" when in truth and in fact the furs 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 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 which failed: 1. to show the true animal name of the animal or animals which produced the fur used in such fur products. 2. 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 misbranded in that labels attached thereto, set forth the name or names of an animal or animals other than the name of the animal that produced the fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 4 (3) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules 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 "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth on labels in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

Complaint 76 F.

(c) 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 Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

(d) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in handwriting on labels, in violation of Rule 29 (b) of said Rules and Regulations. (e) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth in the required sequence, in violation of Rule 30 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by 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 show the true animal name of the animal or animals which produced the fur used in such fur products. PAR. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that respondents set forth on invoices pertaining to fur products the name or names of an animal or animals other than the name of the animal that produced the fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, 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 in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder inasmuch as information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 10. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling 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 (a) of the said Act.

PHILIP REINER FURS, INC. , ET AL.

Complaint Among and included in the aforesaid advertisements but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the Paterson News, a newspaper published in the city of Paterson, State of New Jersey and having a wide circulation in New Jersey and in other States of the United States. Among such false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of the animal or animals which produced the fur used in such fur products. 2. To show that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

PAR. 11. 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 Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required, in violation of Rule 10 of the said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The term "natural" was not used to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of the said Rules and Regulations.

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 that certain of said fur products were falsely or deceptively 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 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such falsely and deceptively advertised fur products but not limited thereto, were fur products advertised as "Broadtail" thereby implying that the furs contained therein were entitled to the designation "Broadtail Lamb" when in truth and in fact the furs contained therein were not entitled to such designation.

Complaint 76 F.

PAR. 13. In advertising fur products for sale, as aforesaid, respondents made pricing claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Regulations under the Fur Products Labeling Act. Respondents in making such claims and representations failed to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations were based, in violation of Rule 44 (e) of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 14. 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 Commis-sion Act. DECISIO D 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 Texties 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 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 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 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 S 2.34 (b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: PHILIP REINER FURS, 1NC. , ET AL.

Decision and Order 1. Respondent Philip Reiner 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 305 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York. Respondent Philp Reiner is an offcer of said corporation and his 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 is ordered That respondents Philip Reiner Furs, Inc. , a corporation, and its offcers, and Philip Reiner, 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 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 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 " Hfur" and Hfur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: A. Misbranding any fur product by;

1. Falsely or deceptively labeling OY otherwise falsely or deceptively identifying any such fur product as to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product. 2. Failing to affx a label to such fur product showing in words and in figures plainly legible al1 of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 3. Setting forth on a label attached to such fur product the name or names of any animal or animals other than the name of the animal producing the fur contained in the fur product as specified in the Fur Products Name Guide, and as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations.

Decision and Order 76 F. T. 4. Setting forth information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form on a label affxed to such fur product. 5. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" on a label in the manner required where an election is made to use that term in lieu of the term Dyed Lamb.

6. 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 promulgated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

7. Setting forth information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting on a label affxed to such fur product.

8. 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 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 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. Setting forth on an invoice pertaining to such fur product the name or names of any animal or animals other than the name of the animal producing the fur contained in the fur product as specified in the Fur Products Name Guide, and as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations.

3. Setting forth information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form on an invoice pertaining to such fur product. PHILIP REINER FURS, INC., ET AL.

Decision and Order C. Falsely or deceptively advertising any fur product through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement or notice which is intended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale, or offering for sale of any such fur product, and 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 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Falsely or deceptively identifies such fur product as to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product. 3. Fails to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words "Dyed Lamb, 4. Fails to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed in advertisements under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed, or otherwise artificially colored. D. Failing to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which pricing claims and representations of the types described in subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, are based.

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 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 which they have complied with this order. Complaint 76 F.