Mechel Wilkenfeld

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

In tor Marrer or MECHEL WILKENFELD CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1685. Complaint, Feb. 10, 1970—Decision, Feb. 10, 1970 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturer and wholesaler of furs to cease falsely invoicing and misbranding 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 Mechel Wilkenfeld, an individual trading as Mechel Wilkenfeld, 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 proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: © Paracraru 1. Respondent Mechel Wilkenfeld is an individual trading as Mechel Wilkenfeld with his office and principal place of business located at 355 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York. Respondent is a manufacturer of fur products and a wholesaler of furs.

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; and has introduced into commerce, sold, advertised and offered for sale in commerce, and transported and distributed in commerce, furs as the terms “commerce,” “fur” and “fur product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Pan. 8. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were not labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4(2) of MECHEL WILKENFELD 107 106 : Complaint 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 and fur products with labels which failed to show the name, or other identification issued and registered by the Commission, of one or more of the persons who manufactured such fur products for introduction into commerce, introduced them into commerce, sold them in commerce, advertised or offered them for sale, in commerce, or transported or distributed them in commerce. 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 Regulations.

(b) Labels affixed to fur products did not comply with the minimum size requirements of one and three-fourths inches by two and three-fourths inches, in violation of Rule 27 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) 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.

(d) 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. 5. Certain of said furs or 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 furs or fur products, but net limited thereto, were furs or fur products covered by invoices which failed :

1. To show the true animal name of the animal or animals which produced the furs or fur used in such fur products. 2. To disclose that the furs or fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

108 FEDERAL ‘TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Decision and Order (7 ELC.

Pax. 6. Certain of said furs or 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 furs or 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 relating to fur products, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 7. 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 AND OnvdER 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 aforesaid 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 Jaw has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and other provisions as required by the Cominission’s Rules; aid .

The Commission having thereafter considered the matter and having determined that it has 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 MECHEL WILLKENEHLD ivug 106 Order hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Mechel Wilkenfeld is an individual trading as Mechel Wilkenfeld with his office and principal place of business located at 855 Seventh Avenue, New York, 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 Mechel Wilkenfeld, individually and trading as Mechel Wilkenfeld, or under 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; or in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the transportation or distribution In commerce, of any fur, 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 Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe a fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

3. Affixing to such fur product a label that does not comply with the minimum size requirements of one and threefourths inches by two and three-fourths inches. 4. 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 affixed to such fur product.

Complaint GT PT.C, 5. 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 or 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. 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 or 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 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. In. toe Marrer or