Carl M. Stephan

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

In toe MatTrer or CARL M. STEPHAN ET AL. TRADING AS THE FASHION CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 6956. Complaint, Nov. 25, 1957—Decision, June 11, 1958 Consent order requiring furriers in San Antonio, Tex., to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to comply with the labeling, invoicing, and advertising requirements, and specifically by advertising in newspapers which failed to disclose the names of animals producing the furs in certain products or the country of origin, or that some products contained artificially colored or cheap or waste fur.

Mr. John 7. Walker supporting the complaint. Respondents, pro se.

Inir1au Decision sy JonHn B. Pornpexter, Heartnc Examiner On November 25, 1957, the Federal Trade Commission issued a complaint charging Carl M. Stephan, Earl Marcus, Gladys Stephan, Murray Marcus, Carol Marcus and Janet Marcus, individually and as copartners, trading as The Fashion, hereinafter referred to as respondents, with misbranding, falsely and deceptively invoicing and advertising fur products in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act. After issuance and service of the complaint, the respondents and counsel supporting the complaint entered into an agreement for a consent order. The agreement has been approved by the Director and Assistant Director of the Bureau of Litigation. The agreement disposes of the matters complained about. The pertinent provisions of said agreement are as follows: 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; the record herein shall consist solely of the complaint and the agreement; respondents waive the requirement that the decision must contain a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; respondents waive further procedural steps before the hearing 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 con- 1786: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Order 54 F.T.C.

test 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 alleged in the complaint. The undersigned hearing examiner having considered the agreement and proposed order and being of the opinion that the acceptance thereof will be in the public interest, hereby accepts such agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and issues the following order:

JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS 1. Respondents Carl M. Stephan, Earl Marcus, Gladys Stephan, Murray Marcus, Carol Marcus and Janet Marcus, are individuals and copartners trading as The Fashion. Their office and principal place of business is located at. 230 East. Houston Street, San Antonio, Tex.

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 Carl M. Stephan, Earl Marcus, Gladys Stephan, Murray Marcus, Carol Marcus and Janet Marcus, individually and as copartners, trading as The Fashion or under any other trade name or names, and respondents’ representatives, agents, and employees, directly or indirectly 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 fur products, or in connection with the offering for sale, sale, advertising, transportation ov distribution of fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which had been shipped and received in commerce as “commerce,” “fur”? and “fur product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act do forthwith cease and desist. from:

A. 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 product as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide and as prescribed under the rules and regulations.

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

THE FASHION 1787 1785 Order (c) That the fur product contains or is composed of bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored fur, when such is the fact; (d) That the fur product is composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, or waste fur, when such is the 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 it for distribution in commerce; (f) The name of the country of origin of any imported furs used in the fur product;

(g) The item numbers or mark assigned to a fur product. 2. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products: (a) Information required under section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder mingled with nonrequired information.

(b) Information required under section +(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products 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 ;

(b) 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 artificially colored fur, when such isa 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 and address of the person issuing such invoices; (f) The name of the country of origin of any imported furs contained in the fur product;

(g) The item number or mark assigned to a fur product. C. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products’ through the use of any notice, advertisement, representation or public annomncement, which is intended to aid, promote, or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale of fur products and which: 1. Fails to disclose the name or names of the animal or animals producing the fur or furs contained in the fur product, as set forth in 528577—60——114 Decision. 54 F.T.C.

the Fur Products Name Guide, and as prescribed under the rules and regulations;

2. Fails to disclose that fur products contain or are composed of bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored fur when such is a fact;

3. Fails to disclose that fur products are composed in whole or in substantial part, of paws, tails, bellies, or waste fur, when such is the fact;

4. Fails to disclose the name of the country of origin of the imported furs contained in fur products;

5. Fails to set forth al] the information required under section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder in type of equal size and conspicuousness and in close proximity with each other.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to section 8.21 of the Commission’s rules of practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 11th day of June 1958, 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. SURPLUS TIRE CO., INC., ET AL. 1789 Decision