Manis & Steve Furs

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

In true Marrer or MANIS & STEVE FURS, ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND TIJE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1759. Complaint, July 2, 1970—Dccision, July 2, 1970 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturing furrier to cease misbranding and falsely invoicing 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 MANIS & STEVE FURS, ET AL. 907 906 Complaint reason to believe that Manis & Steve Furs, a partnership, and Stylianos Tseas and Manis Antzoulatos, individually and as copartners trading as Manis & Steve Furs, 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: Paracrapu 1. Respondent Manis & Steve Furs is a partnership organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondents Stylianos Tseas and Manis Antzoulatos are copartners in the said partnership. They formulate, direct and control the policies, acts and practices of the said partnership. Respondents are manufacturers of fur products with their office and principal place of business located at 245 West 29th Street, New York, New York.

Par. 2. Respondents are now and for some time last past have 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 have 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 “ecommerce,” “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 with labels 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. 4. Certain of said fur products 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, but not limited thereto, were fur products covered by invoices which failed Decision and Order 7 FTC.

to disclose that the fur products were bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact. Pan. 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 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 has 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 record for a period of thirty (30) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in § 2.34(b) of the Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order; _ 1, Respondent Manis & Steve Furs is a partnership organized, existing and doing business under the laws of the State of New York with its office and principal place of business located at 245 West 29th Street, New York, New York.

Respondents Stylianos Tseas and Manis Antzoulatos are individ-: ual copartners in the said partnership. They formulate, direct and control the policies, acts and practices of said partnership. Their address is the same as that of said partnership. MANIS & STEVE FURS, ET AL. YUY 906 Decision and Order 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 Té ts ordered, That respondent Manis & Steve Furs, a partnership, and respondents Stylianos Tseas and Manis Antzoulatos, individually and as copartners trading as Manis & Steve Furs or under any other name, and respondents’ 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 tor 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:

1. Misbranding any fur product by failing to affix a label to such fur product showing in words and 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. Falsely or deceptively invoicing any fur product by failing to furnish an invoice, as the term “invoice” is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, showing in words and figures plainty legible all the information required to be disclosed by each ef the subsections of Section 5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

lé 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.