Zimet International Corporation

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

In THE Marter oF ZIMET INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket O-1976. Complaint, July 20, 1971—Decision, July 20, 1971 Consent order requiring a New York City wholesaler of furs to cease falsely or deceptively invoicing its furs or 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 Zimet International Corporation, a corporation, and Jesse Zimet, individually and as an officer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provicions 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:

Paraarary 1. Respondent Zimet International Corporation is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. Respondent Jesse Zimet is an officer of the corporate respondent. He formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies 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 232 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, 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,” GAAVAA A LAN A AURUEV RA Ure Uae ey ae tans we 68 Decision and Order “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 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. Respondents sold and distributed fur products or furs which were bleached, dyed or otherwise 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 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 furs or fur products as “mink” without a disclosure that the said furs or fur products were bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored had the tendency and capacity to mislead respondents’ customers and others into the erroneous belief that the fur products or furs were not bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored. Such failure to disclose a 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.

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 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 Division of Textiles and Furs, Bureau of Consumer Protection proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and. which, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondents with violation of the Federal Decision and Order 79 ETC.

Trade Commission Act and the Flammable Fabrics Act, as amended; 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 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 Zimet International Corporation is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondent Jesse Zimet is an officer of the corporate respondent. He formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies of said respondent.

Respondents are manufacturers of fur products with their office and principal place of business located at 232 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 It is ordered, That respondents Zimet International Corporation, a corporation, and its officers and Jesse Zimet, 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 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 WHITEHOUSE ACCESSORIES, ET AL. 71 68 Complaint 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 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 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 fur products or furs is natural when such fur is pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

Lt 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.

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