George Schwartz

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

IN THE MATTER OF GEORGE SCHWARTZ, ET AL. TRADING AS STEPHEN-GEORGE WHOLESALE FURS CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 7336. Complaint, Dec. 16, 1958—Decision, June 27, 1959 Consent order requiring a furrier in Minneapolis, Minn., to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to comply with the labeling and invoicing requirements.

S. F. House, Esq. for the Commission.

Respondents, p70 se.

INITIAL DECISION BY ROBERT L. PIPER, HEARING EXAMINER The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents on December 16, 1958, charging them with having violated the Fur Products Labeling Act, the rules and regulations issued thereunder, and the Federal Trade Commission Act, by misbranding and falsely invoicing their fur products. Respondents entered into an agreement, dated May 7, 1959, containing a consent order to cease and desist, disposing of all the issues in this proceeding without further hearings, which agreement has been duly approved by the director of the Bureau of Litigation. Said agreement has been submitted to the undersigned, heretofore duly designated to act as hearing examiner herein, for his consideration in accordance with §3.25 of the Rules of Practice of the Commission.

Respondents, pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, have admitted all of the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and agreed that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been made duly in accordance with such allegations. Said agreement further provides that respondents waive all further procedural steps before the hearing examiner or the Commission, including the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law and the right to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with such agreement. It has also been agreed that the record herein shall consist solely of the complaint and said agreement, that the agreement shall not become a part of the official record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission, STEPHEN-GEORGE WHOLESALE FURS 2021 2020 Order that 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, that said order to cease and desist shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing and may be altered, modified, or set aside in the manner provided for other orders, and that the complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order. This proceeding having now come on for final consideration on the complaint and the aforesaid agreement containing the consent order, and it appearing that the order and agreement cover all of the allegations of the complaint and provide for appropriate disposition of this proceeding, the agreement is hereby accepted and ordered filed upon this decision and said agreement becoming part of the Commission’s decision pursuant to $§3.21 and 3.25 of the Rules of Practice, and the hearing examiner accordingly makes the following findings, for jurisdictional purposes, and order: a 1. Respondents George Schwartz and Stephen Lisle are copartners trading as Stephen-George Wholesale Furs, with their office and principal place of business located at 22 North Fourth Street, Minneapolis, Minn.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents hereinabove named. The complaint states a cause of action against said respondents under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, and this proceeding is in the interest of the public.

ORDER It ts ordered, That George Schwartz and Stephen Lisle, individually and as copartners, trading as Stephen-George Wholesale Furs, or under any other name, and respondents’ representatives, agents, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, manufacture for introduction, 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 sale, manufacture for sale, advertising, 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,” “fur,” and “fur product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: Order 55 F.T.C, 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;

(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 or distributed it in commerce; (f) The name of the country of origin of any imported furs contained in a fur product.

2. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products: (a) Information required under §4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form;

(b) Information required under §4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations thereunder, mingled with nonrequired information.

3. Failing to set forth the information required under §4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the required sequence. B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish purchasers of fur products invoices 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 ;

(b) That the fur product contains or is composed of used fur, when such is the fact; , (c) That the fur product contains or is composed of bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored fur, when such is the fact; STEPHEN-GEORGE WHOLESALE FURS 2023 2020 Decision (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 and address of the person issuing such invoice; (f) The name of the country of origin of any imported furs contained in a fur product.

2. Setting forth information required under §5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form. - 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 27th day of June 1959, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly:

It is ordered, That the above-named respondents 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 cents? and desist.

Decision 55 F.T.C.