Marcus & Smith Bros., Inc.

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

. In THE Matter or MARCUS & SMITH 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 6714. Complaint, Jan. 22, 1957—Decision, June 19, 1957 Consent order requiring a furrier in New York City to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to comply with its requirements in branding and invoicing fur products.

Mr. Ross D. Young for the Commission.

Mr. Manfred H. Benedek, of New York City, for respondents. Inirtat Decision By John B. Pornpexter, Heartnc ExXaMINER The complaint in this proceeding charges that Marcus & Smith Bros., Inc., Ben Smith and Barney Marcus, hereinafter called respondents, have violated the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, in stated particulars. After issuance and service of the complaint, the respondents, their counsel, and counsel supporting the complaint entered into an agreement for a consent order which will dispose of all of the issues in the proceeding. This agreement has been approved by the Director and Assistant Director of the Bureau of Litigation. The pertinent provisions of said agreement are as follows: The respondents admit all jurisdictional facts; the complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order; the order shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing and the said agreement, shall not.become a part of the official. record of the proceeding unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission; respondents waive the requirement that the decision must contain a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; examiner and the Commission, and the order may be altered, modified or set aside in the manner provided by statute for other orders; respondents waive any right to challenge or contest the validity of the order entered in accordance with the agreement; and the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint.

Order 53 F.T.C.

JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS 1. The respondent Marcus & Smith Bros., Inc., is a corporation organized and doing. business under the laws of the State of New York, with its office and principal place of business located at 345 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York. The individual respondents Ben Smith and Barney Marcus are officers of said corporation and their office and principal place of business is the same as that of the corporation.

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 Marcus & Smith Bros., Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Ben Smith and Barney Marcus, 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 introduction into commerce, or the sale, offering for sale, transportation or’ distribu: tion of fur products in commerce, or in connection with the manufacture for sale, sale; offering for sale, transportation or distribution of fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce as “commerce” 3 “fur”, and “fur product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: K. ‘Misbranding fur products by:

' 1, Failing to affix labels to fur products showing: (a) The name or names of the animal ‘or animals. producing the fur: or furs contained in the fur products as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide and as prescribed under the Rules and Regulations;

(5) That the fur product contains or is composed of used fur, when such is a fact;

. (ec) That the fur product contains or is composed. of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur, when such is a fact; (d) That the fur product is composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies or waste fur, when such is a fact; (e) The name, or other identification issued and registered by the Commission, of one or more persons who, manufactured such fur product for introduction into commerce, introduced it into commerce, sold it in commerce, advertised or offered it for sale in commerce, or transported or distributed it in commerce; MARCUS & SMITH BROS., INC., ET AL. 1159 1157, Decision (f) The name of the country of origin of any imported furs used in the fur product.

2. Setting forth on labels attached to fur products: (a) Non-required information mingled with required information;

(6) Required information in abbreviated form or in handwriting.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices showing:

(a) The name or names of the animal or animals producing the fur or furs contained in the fur product as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide and as prescribed under the Rules and Regulations;

(6) That the fur product contains or is composed of used fur, when such is a fact;

(c) That the fur product contains or is composed of bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored fur, when such is a fact; (dz) That the fur product is composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, or waste fur, when such is a fact; (e) The name and address of the persons issuing such invoices; (f) The name of the country of origin of any imported furs used in the fur product.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 19th day of June, 1957, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly:

It ts 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 the order to cease and desist. Complaint 53 ETC.

’