Weiss Furs

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

IN THE MATTER OF WEISS FURS, ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC, IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE Fer PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1655. Cumplaint, Dec. 196B-Decision, Dec. , 1969 Consent order requiring manufacturers and retailers of fur products of St. Louis, Mo., to cease misbranding by failing to use the term " natural" on labels to describe fur products which are not artificially colored and by failing to disclose on labels when fur is composed of second-hand fur, and falsely invoicing by omitting required information. 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 Weiss Furs, a partnership, and Eugene Weiss and Elliott Wilbur Weiss, individually and as copartners trading as Weiss Furs, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling WEISS FURS, ET AL. 927 926 Complaint 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 Weiss Furs is a partnership, existing and doing business in the State of Missouri. Respondents Eugene Weiss and Elliott Wilbur Weiss are individual copartners in the said partnership.

Respondents are manufacturers and retailers of fur products with their offce and principal place of business located at 919 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri.

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 fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 3. Certain of sad fm 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 without labels as required by said Act. PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and 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 points, bleached, dyed . tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colered, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The disclosure "second-hand " where required, was not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 23 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) Required item numbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Complaint 76 F.

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 show the country of origin of imported furs used in such fur products.

PAR. 6. 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 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. 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 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 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- WEISS FURS, ET AL. 929 926 Decision and Order mission by the respondents of ali 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 Jaw 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 has 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 records for a period of thirty (80) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in 34 (b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the foliowing jurisdictional findings, and enters the foliowing order: 1. Respondent Weiss Furs is a partnership, existing and doing business in the State of Missouri with its offce and principal place of business located at 919 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri. Respondents Eugene Weiss and Elliott Wilbur Weiss are individual copartners in the said partnership and their address is the same as said partnership.

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 Weiss Furs, a partnership, and Eugene Weiss and Elliott Wilbur Weiss, individually and as copartners trading as 7eiss Furs or under any other name, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connedion 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 " Hfuy" and Decision and Order 76 F.

, do fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act 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. Failng to disclose that such fur product contains or is composed of second-hand used fur.

4. 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. Faihng to furnish an invoice, as the term 'jinvoice 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. Failing to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed 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 tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored. 3. Failing to set forth on an invoice the item number or mark assigned to such fur product.

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. BECKER & SHILLING, INC. , ET AL. 931 981 Complaint