Joseph Wiesel

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

In the Marrer or JOSEPH WIESEL CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket G-1675. Complaint, Jan. 20, 1970—Decision, Jan. 20, 1970 Jonsent order requiring.a New York City manufacturing furrier to cease falsely advertising, guaranteeing, invoicing, and misbranding its fur products.

ComMPLAINT 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 Joseph Wiesel, an individual, trading as Joseph Wiesel, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has 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 preceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

Paracrary 1. Respondent Joseph Wiesel is an individual, trading as Joseph Wiesel.

Respondent is a manufacturer of fur products with his office and principal piace of business located at 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York.

Par. 2. Respondent is now and for some time last past has 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 has 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 “com- JOSEPH WIESEL uu 58 Complaint merce,” “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 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 required by the said Act. Par. 4. 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) 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 Reoulations.

(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 respondent 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 viclation 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) Reguired item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 7. 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.

Decision and Order TT E.T.C.

Among and included in the aforesaid advertisements, but not limited thereto, were oral representations by the respondent which were communicated to purchasers of said fur products. Among such false and deceptive representations, but not limited thereto, were representations 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. 8. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein respondent falsely and deceptively represented fur products in that certain of said fur products were represented 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(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 9. Respondent furnished false guaranties under Section 10(b) of the Fur Products Labeling Act with respect to certain of his fur products by falsely representing in writing that respondent had a continuing guaranty on file with the Federal Trade Commission when respondent 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 Regulations under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Section 10(b) of said Act.

Par. 10. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent, 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 anp Orper The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondent named in the caption hereof, and the respondent 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 respondent with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act; and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by ‘the respondent of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the afore- 58 Order said draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent 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 respondent has 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 §2.34(b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Joseph Wiesel is an individual trading as Joseph Wiesel with his office and principal place of business located at 333 Seventh Avenue, city of New York, State of New York. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered, That respondent Joseph Wiesel, individually and trading as Joseph Wiesel or any other name or names, and respondent’s 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. Misbranding any fur product by:

1. Failing to affix 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 Order VT FTC.

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 preduct.

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 reuired 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.

©. Falsely or deceptively advertising any fur product through use of any advertisements, representation, public announcement or notice which is intended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly in the sale, or offering for sale of such fur product and which:

1. Fails to set forth in words and figures plainly legible all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Represents, directly or by implication, that the fur contained in such fur product is natural when the fur contained therein is pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

li ts further ordered, That the respondent Joseph Wiesel, individually and trading as Joseph Wiesel or any other name or names, and respondent’s 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 respondent has reason to believe that such fur product may be introduced, sold, transported, or distributed in commerce. LA ROSE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. 63 58 Complaint It is further ordered, That respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon him of this order, file with the Commission a report, in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he has complied with this order.