Hirschman Fur Corp

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

In roe MatTrer OF HIRSCHMAN FUR CORP., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1725. Complaint, Apr. 16, 1970—Decision, Apr. 16, 1970 Consent order requiring New York City corporations engaged in the fur business to cease falsely and deceptively invoicing their furs and 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. Hirschman Fur Corp., a corporation, Hirschman-Barnett Corp. a corporation, Irving Hirschman and Joseph Hirschman, individually and as officers of said corporations, and Sydney Barnett, individually and as an officer of Hirschman-Barnett Corp., 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:

Paracrarn 1. Respondent Hirschman Fur Corp. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondent Hirschman-Barnett Corp. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondents Irving Hirschman and Joseph Hirschman are officers of the corporate respondents. They cooperate in formulating, directing and controlling the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondents, including those hereinafter set forth. Respondent Sydney Barnett is an officer of respondent Hirschman- Barnett Corp. He cooperates ‘in formulating, directing and controlling the acts, practices and policies of said corporation, including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are fur merchants with their office and principal place of business located at 156 West 30th Street, city of New York. FLINDUDUMAIN PUL YUULLs, Wb Ate e868 456 ; Complaint Par. 2. Respondents are now and for some time last past have 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 have 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 have 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.

Par. 3. Certain of said fur products of 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. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products or furs, but not limited thereto, were fur products or furs covered by invoices which failed to disclose that the fur contained in the fur products or furs was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

Par. 4. Certain of said furs or fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that said furs or fur products were invoiced 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(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Pan. 5. Respondents have sold and distributed fur products or furs. which were bleached, dyed or artificially colored. Certain of these fur products or furs were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that the said fur products or furs were described on invoices as “Mink” without disclosing that said fur products or furs were bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored. The respondents’ description of the said fur products or furs as “Mink” without a disclosure that the fur contained in the said fur products or furs was bleached, dyed or artificially colored had the tendency and capacity to mislead respondents’ customers and others into the erroneous belief that the fur contained in the fur products or furs was not bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored. Such failure to disclose this material fact was to the prejudice of respondents’ customers and the purchasing public and constituted false and deceptive invoicing under Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 458 FEDERAL ‘TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Decision and Order TT ET.C.

Par. 6. Certain of said fur products or furs 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 that the fact that fur products or furs were composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur was not.disclosed in the required information on invoices covering the said fur products or furs in violation of Rule 19(a) 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 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 Act, 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 Hirschman Fur Corp. is a corporation organized, ALBARN Usdermemes oR Ue Seno ey: _.

456 Order existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondent Hirschman-Barnett Corp. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondents Irving Hirschman and Joseph Hirschman are officers of said corporations. They cooperate in formulating, directing and controlling the acts, practices and policies of said corporations. Respondent Sydney Barnett is an officer of Hirschman-Barnett Corp. He cooperates in formulating, directing and controlling the acts, practices and policies of said corporation. Respondents are fur merchants with their office and principal place of business located at 156 West 30th Street, 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 respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered, That respondents Hirschman Fur Corp., a corporation, and its officers, Hirschman-Barnett Corp., a corporation, and its officers, Irving Hirschman and Joseph Hirschman, individually and as officers of said corporations, and Sydney Barnett, individually and as an officer of Hirschman-Barnett Corp., 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 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 and distribution in commerce of furs, 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 invoices, 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 . under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Representing, directly or by implication, on invoices that Complaint TT WTC.

the fur contained in the furs or fur products is natural when such fur is pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

3. Describing fur products or furs which have been bieached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored by the name of mink or by any other animal name or names without disclosing that the said fur products or furs were bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

4, Failing when a fur or fur product is pointed or contains or is composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur, to disclose such facts as a part of the required information on invoices pertaining thereto.

lt is further ordered, That respondents notify the Commission at least 80 days prior to any proposed change in the corporate respondents such as dissolution, assignment or sale resulting in the emergence of successor corporations, the creation or dissolution of subsidiaries or any other change in the corporations which may affect compliance obligations arising out of the order. Lt is further ordered, That the respondent corporations shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of their operating divisions.

It is further ordered, That 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.