Camelot Hats, Inc

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

IN THE MATTER OF CAMELOT HATS, IKC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , I1\ REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1611. Complaint, N01J, 1969-Decision VOV. 1969 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturer of ladies' fur hats to cease misbranding and deceptively invoicing its fur products. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the .provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and 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 Camelot Hats, Inc., a corporation, and Marvin E. Simner and Max Brandt, 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 Camelot Hats, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Individual respondents Marvin E. Simner and :\1ax Brandt are offcers of said corporation. They formulate, direct and control the policies, acts and practices of the corporate respondent, including the acts and practices hereinafter referred to. Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of ladies' fur hats. Their offce and principal place of business is located at 15 West 39th Street, Kew York, Kew York.

PAR. 2. Respondents are now and for some time last past have been engaged in the manufacture for introduction, 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 CAMELOT HATS, INC. , ET AL. 539 538 Complaint have been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms "comnenn8ii in the Fur Productsmerce fur" and " fur product" arp Labeling Act.

PAR. 3. 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.

PAR. 4. Certain of said fnr 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) 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.

(b) Required item numbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. 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:

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

2. To disclose that the said fur products contained or were composed of bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored fur, when such was the fact.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fnr Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) The term "natural" was not used on invoices 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.

(b) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. 540 FEDERAL TRAm; COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint 76 F.

PAR. 7. 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 therennder 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 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 (BO) 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 Camelot Hats, Inc. , is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. Its office and principal place of business is located at 15 West 39th Street, New York, New York. Respondents Marvin E. Simner and Max Brandt 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.

CAMELOT HATS, INC. , ET AL. 541 538 Decision and Order 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 Camelot Hats, Inc. , a corporation, and its offcers, and Marvin E. Simner and Max Brandt, 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 COlnmerce, 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 and "fur product" arecommerce, as the terms "commerce, fur" defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. Misbranding any fur product by:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. Failing to set forth on a label the item number or mark assigned to such fur product.

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 fig-ures 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. Decision and Order 76 F.

2. Failng to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information required to be dislcosed on an invoice 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 artificiaHy colored.

3. Failing to set forth on an invoice the item number or mark assigned to such fur product.

It is fu"that ordered That the respondent corporation shah forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divis10!ls.

It is fwrthe1' ordered That the respondents herein shah, 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.