G. & T. Fur Corp

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

IN THE MATTER OF G. & T. FUR CORP., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATIO!" OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1585. Complaint, Sept. 2, 1969-Decision, Sept. , 1969 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturing furrier to cease misbranding, falsely invoicing, and furnishing false guaranties that its fur products are not misbranded.

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 G. & T. Fur Corp. , a corporation, and Arnold Goldstein and Louis Tama, individually and as offcers 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 G. & T. Fur Corp. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondents Arnold Goldstein and Louis Tama are offcers the corporate respondent. They formulate, direct and control the policies, acts and practices of the corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are manufacturers of fur products with their offce and principal place of business located at 307 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York.

PAR. 2. Respondents are now and for some time last past have G. & T. FUR CORP. , ET AL. 349 348 Complaint 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, fur" 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 "color added " when in fact such fur was dyed, 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.

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 certain fur products were invoiced to show that the fur contained therein was "color added," when in fact such fur was dyed, in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 7. Respondents furnished false guaranties 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 F.ederal Complaint 76 F.

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 Regu1.:- (b) oftions under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Section 10 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.

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 Commissions 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 a11 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 34 (b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent G. & T. Fur Corp. is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of G. & T. FUR CORP. , ET AL. 351 348 Decision and Order the State of New York with its offce and principal place of business located at 307 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York. Respondents Arnold Goldstein and Louis Tama are offcers of said corporation. They formulate, direct and control the policies acts and practices of said corporation and their 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 G. & T. Fur Corp. , a corporation, and its offcers, and Arnold Goldstein and Louis Tama, individually and as offcers 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, into 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 defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. :\1isbranding any fur product by:

1. Representing directly or by implication on a label that the fur contained in such fur product is "color added" when such fur is dyed.

2. Failing to affx a label to such fur product showing in words and in figures plainly legible al1 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. Representing directly or by implication on an invoice that the fur contained in such fur product is "color added" when such fur is dyed.

2. Failing to furnish an invoice, as the term "invoice is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, showing in words and figures plainly legible al1 the information re- Decision and Order 76 F.

quired to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. It is further m.dered That respondents G. & T. Fur Corp. , a corporation, and its offcers, and Arnold Goldstein and Louis Tama, individually and as offcers 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 di visions.

It is further ordered That 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.