Rosen & Bachner, Inc

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

: ROSEN. AND..BACHNER, -INC.,- ET AL. ~ 559 2) Complaint of the corporate respondents.such as dissolution, assignment or sale resulting in the emergence of a successor corporation, the creation or dissolution which may affect, compliance obligations arising out of the order. _ 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 i in which they have ecomplied with, this order. - In THE: Marrer or.

_ ROSEN & BACHNER, INC, Er AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO* ‘THE: ALLEGED VIOLATION or THE” ‘FEDERAL TRADE coteatisst30N AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS” Docket 02295, Comstains, Oct, 2, 1972—Decision Oct. 2, 1972." Consent ‘order requiring a New York City manufacturer of fur products: among” - other r things to cease misbranding and deceptively invoicing its merchandise. ‘Compnarn'r 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 Rosen & Bachner, Inc., a corporation, and Marvin Rosen and Arthur Bachner, 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 Com- ‘mission 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:

Paracrary 1. Respondent Rosen & Bachner, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondents Marvin Rosen and Arthur Bachner are officers of the corporate respondent. They formulate, direct and control the policies, acts and practices of the corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are manufacturers of fur products with their office and principal place of business located at 150 West 30th Street, New York, New York. .

560: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ‘DECISIONS Complaint 81...

“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 distribu-’ tion in commerce, of fur products; and have manufactured for sale, sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which has 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 i 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. 5. 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 to disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact. Par. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that certain of said 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. Par. 7. Respondents furnished false guaranties under Section 10(b) of the Fur Products Labeling Act with respect to certain of their fur products by falsely representing in writing that respondents had a continuing guaranty on file with the Federal Trade Commission when respondents in furnishing such guaranties had reason to believe that the fur products so falsely guarantied would be introduced, sold, transported and distributed in commerce, in violation of Rule 48(c) ‘ROSEN- AND. BACHNER, INC., ET: AL. 561 559 | Decision and Order of said rules and regulations under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Section 10(b) of said Act. — -Par. 8. 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 New. York: Regional Office 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 - 1 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 i 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 Section 2.34(b) of its rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Rosen & Bachner, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York with its office and principal place of business located at 150 W. 30th Street, New York, New York. Respondents Marvin Rosen and Arthur Bachner are officers of 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.

562 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION” DECISIONS “Decision -and’ Order 81 ETC. - 2. The Federal Trade Commission’ has jurisdiction of the ‘subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and’ the procéeding 4s in the public interest.

, ‘ ORDER:

It is ordered, That Rosen & Bachner, Inc.,.a corporation, its successors and assigns, and its officers, and Marvin Rosen and. Arthur Bachner, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division, 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 for gale, 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 artificially colored.

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

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing any fur product 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 each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

9. Representing directly or by implication on an invoice that the fur contained in such fur product is natural, when such fur is pointed, bleached, dyed, tip- dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

It is further ordered, That Rosen & Bachner, Inc., a corporation, its successors and assigns, and its officers, and Marvin Rosen and Arthur ‘Bachner, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any _. CONSEENEE CARPETS, INC., BT “Ab. 563 B63 . Complaint .

‘corporation, subsidiary, division, or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from furnishing a false guaranty that any fur product isnot misbranded, falsely invoiced or. falsely advertised when the-respondents have reason to believe that such fur product may be introduced, sold, transported, or distributed i in commerce. 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 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. It is further ordered, That the individual respondents naméd herein promptly notify the Commission of the discontinuance of their present business or employment and of their affiliation with a new business or employment. Such notice shall include respondents” current business or employment in which they are engaged’as well as a description of their duties and responsibilities.

Itis 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.