William Frohlinger Furs

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

In var Marrer or WILLIAM FROHLINGER rraptne as WILLIAM FROHLINGER FURS CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL 'TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1700. Complaint, Feb. 26, 1970—Decision, Feb. 26. 1970 Consent order requiring a New York City retail furrier to cease falsely invoic- : ing his 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 William Frohlinger, an individual trading as William Frohlinger Furs, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations WILLIAM FROHLINGER FURS 201 200 Complaint 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 William Frohlinger is an individual trading as William Frohlinger Furs.

Respondent is a fur merchant with his office and principal place of business located at 207 West 29th Street, 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 sale, advertising, and offering for sale in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution in commerce, of fur products; and has 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, and 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. Par. 3. Certain of said fur products or furs 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 or furs, but not limited thereto, were fur products or furs covered by invoices which failed:

1. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur products or furs was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artifically colored, when such was the fact.

2. To show the country of origin of imported furs or those contained in the fur products.

Par. 4. Respondent sold and distributed fur products or furs which were bleached, dyed or artificially colored. Certain of these furs or fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of ‘Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that the said fur products were described on invoices as “Dressed Ranch Mink females” without disclosing that said fur products or furs were bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored. The respondent’s description of the said furs or fur products as “Dressed Ranch Mink females” without a disclosure that the said furs or fur products were bleached, dyed or artificially colored had the tendency and capacity to mislead respondent’s customers and others into the erroneous belief that the fur products or furs were not bleached, dyed or Decision and Order TT ELC.

otherwise artificially colored. Such failure to disclose a material fact was to the prejudice of respondent’s customers and the purchasing public and constituted false and deceptive invoicing under Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 5. Certain of said furs were falsely and deceptively invoiced with respect to the name of the country of origin of imported furs, in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced furs, but not limited thereto, were imported furs covered by invoices which failed to show the country of origin of such imported furs. The omission of the required material fact as to the country of origin of the imported furs implied that the said furs were of domestic origin when in truth and in fact the said furs were of foreign origin, in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 6. Certain of said fur products or furs were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of Rule 19(a) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act. 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. Deciston ann Orpen The Iederal 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 jursidictional 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 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 hav- WILLIAM FROHLINGER FURS WAU) 200 ' Order ing 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 §2.384(b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent William Frohlinger is an individual trading as William Frohlinger Furs.

Respondent is a fur merchant with his office and principal place of business located at 207 West 29th Street, 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. oe ORDER It is ordered, That respondent William Frohlinger, an individual trading under William Frohlinger Furs or any other name, and respondent’s representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the 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 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 sale, advertising or offering for sale in 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 falsely or deceptively invoicing furs or fur products 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 Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Representing, directly or by implication, on invoices that the fur contained in furs or fur products is natural when such fur is pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

3. Failing when a fur or fur product is pointed or contains or is composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored Complaint TT FTC.

fur, to disclose such facts as a part of the required information on invoices pertaining thereto.

4, Misrepresenting in any manner on an invoice, directly or by implication, the country of origin of any imported fur. 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.