Rosenblum Bros., Inc

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

In THe Matter or ROSENBLUM BROS,, 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-1931, Complaint, June 2, 1971—Decision, June 2, 1971 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturer of fur products to cease misbranding and deceptively invoicing its furs. ComMPLaINntT 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 Rosenblum Bros., Ine, a corporation, and ‘Samuel Rosenblum, Solomon Rosenblum and Ralph ‘Rosenblum, ‘individually and as officers 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 com-: .piaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: a Paracrary 1. Respondent Rosenblum Bros., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondents Samuel Rosenblum, Solomon Rosenblum and Ralph Rosenblum are officers of the corporate respondent. ‘They formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent, including those hereinafter set forth. 7 Respondents ‘are manufacturers of fur products. with their office ‘and’ principal place of business located at 214 West 29th Street, ‘New York, New York.

ROSENBLUM BROS., INC., ET. ALS™ ~ LIOL 1130 ; Deeision ‘and’ Order- Par. 2. Réspondents ‘are now and for some time Jast 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 “commerce,” “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 falsely and deceptively labeled to show that fur contained therein was natural, when in fact such fur was: pointed, bleached; dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 4. 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 promul gated thereunder. Among such imisbranded 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. 5. Certain of said 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 iiiasmuch as required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. :

Par. 6. 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. Drctston AND Orper 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 Consumer Protection proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration 1132 FEDERAL: TRADE. COMMISSION DECISIONS Decision.and Order 78 F.T.C.

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 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 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. Rosenblum Bros., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the State of New York with its office and principal place of. business located at 214 West 29th Street, New York, New York. Respondents Samuel Rosenblum, Solomon Rosenblum and Ralph Rosenblum are officers of the said corporation. They formulate, direct and control the policies, acts and practices of said corporation and their address is the same as that of said corporation. Respondents are manufacturers of fur products. 2. The Federal Trade. Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the proceeding and of the respondents and the proceeding is in the public interest. me :

ORDER It is ordered, That respondents Rosenblum Bros., Inc., ‘a corporation, and its officers, and Samuel Rosenblum, Solomon Rosenblum and Ralph Rosenblum, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the intro- _ duction, or manufacture for introduction, into commerce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the trasportation or distribution in commerce, of any fur product; or in connection with the manufacture for sale, sale, advertising, offering. for sale, PAUL SHUMAN MFG. CO., INC., ET AL. 1133 1130. Syllabus 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:

A. Misbranding any fur product by:

1. Representing directly or by implication on a label that the fur contained in such fur product is natural when such fur is pointed, bleached, dyed, tip: dyed, or otherwise arti-: ficially colored. .

2. Failing to ‘affix a label to such fur product showing’ in words and i 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.

‘BF falsely or deceptively i invoicing any fur product by failing to set forth on an invoice the item number or mark assigned to such fur product.

It is further ordered, That respondents notify the Commission at least 30 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 création or dissolution of subsidiaries’ or any other change in the corporation which may a affect compliance obligations arising out of the order. .

Ttis further orderéd, That the respondent | cor ‘poration shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions... It 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.