Gitler & Co., Inc

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

In tus Marrer or GITLER & CO., INC. ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1718. Complaint, Mar. 26, 1970—Decision, Mar. 26, 1970 ‘Consent order requiring a New York City wholesale furrier to cease deceptively invoicing its fur products.

ComMPpLaIntT 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 Gitler & Co., Inc., a corporation, and Monroe -Gitler, individually and as an officer 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: Paracraru 1. Respondent Gitler & Co., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws -of the State of New York.

Respondent Monroe Gitler is an officer of the corporate respondent. He formulates, directs and controls the policies, acts and prac- - tices of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are wholesalers of furs with their office and principal place of business located at 216 West 30th Street, New York, New “York.

Par. 2. Respondents are now, and for some time last past have been, engaged in the introduction into commerce, the sale, advertising, and offering for sale in commerce, and the transportation and - distribution in commerce, of furs, as the terms “commerce” and “fur” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 3. Certain of said furs 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. GITLER & CO. INC., ET AL. 339 334 Decision and Order 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. Par. 4. 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. 5. 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 prac- ‘tices 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 Prod- ‘ucts 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 settlement 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 Order 17 BTC.

record for a period of thirty (30) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in § 2.84(b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent Gitler & Co., Inc., is a corporation organized, exist-. ing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State: of New York.

Respondent Monroe Gitler is an officer of said corporation. Heformulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies of said corporation.

_ Respondents are wholesalers of furs with their office and principal place of business located at 216 West 30th Street, New York, New York.

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 Lt is ordered, That respondents Gitler & Co., Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Monroe Gitler, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and respondents’ 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, as the terms “commerce” and “fur” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act do forthwith cease and desist from falsely or deceptively invoicing furs 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. Misrepresenting in any manner on an invoice, directly or by implication, the country of origin of any imported fur. It is further ordered, That respondents notify the Commission at least 80 days prior to any proposed change in the corporate respondent such as dissolution, assignment or sale resulting in the emergence of a successor corporation, the creation or dissolution of subsidiaries or any other change in the corporation which may affect compliance obligations arising out of the order.

It is further ordered, That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions.

THE PORTWOOD CO. | 337 334 : Order lt 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.