Chudik Furs, Inc.

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

In THE MatTTer oF CHUDIK FURS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 7757. Complaint, Jan. 26, 1960—Decision, Afay 18, 1960 Consent order requiring furriers in Detroit, Mich., to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by mutilating labels attached to fur products prior to ultimate sale; by labels falsely identifying furs with respect to the name of the animal producing them; by failing to set forth the term ‘Dyed Decision 56 F.T.C.

Broadtail-processed Lamb” on invoices and in advertising; by newspaper advertising which failed to disclose the names of animals producing certain furs, the country of origin of imported furs, or the fact that some products contained artificially colored fur, and which made claims respecting prices and values of fur products without adequate records as a basis therefor; and by failing in other respects to comply with requirements of the Act. Mr. Garland S. Ferguson for the Commission. Mr. Martin Schlesinger, of New York, N.Y., for respondents. Intrrau Decision sy J.. Eanu Cox, Heartne Examiner The complaint charges that respondents have violated the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, by multilating or causing or participating in the multilation of Jabels required by the Fur Products Labeling Act to be affixed to fur products; by misbranding and falsely and deceptively invoicing and advertising certain fur products; and by failing to maintain full and accurate records disclosing the facts upon which their claims and representations respecting the prices and values of fur products were based. After the issuance of the complaint, respondents, their counsel, and counsel supporting the complaint entered into an agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, which was approved by the Director and Assistant Director of the Commission’s Bureau of Litigation, and thereafter transmitted to the hearing examiner for consideration.

The agreement states that corporate respondent Chudik Furs, Inc., is a corporation existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan, with its office and principal place of business located at 326 Fisher Building, 8011 West. Grand Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan, and that Edward H. Chudik is president of said corporate respondent and controls, formulates and directs the acts, practices and policies of the corporate respondent, his address being the same as that of the corporate respondent. The agreement provides, among other things, that respondents admit all the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint, and agree that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been duly made in accordance with such allegations; that the record on which the initial decision and the decision of the Commission shall be based shall consist solely of the complaint and this agreement; that the agreement shall not become a pari of the oflicial record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission; that the complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order agreed upon, which may be altered, modified or CHUDIK FURS, INC., ET AL. 1415 1418 Order set aside in the manner provided for other orders; that the 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; and that the order set forth in the agreement and hereinafter included in this decision shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing. Respondents waive any further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission, the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law, and all of the rights they may have to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with the agreement.

The order agreed upon fully disposes of all the issues raised in the complaint, and adequately prohibits the acts and practices charged therein as being in violation of the Federal] Trade Commission Act, and of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Accordingly, the hearing examiner finds this proceeding to be in the public interest, and accepts the agreement containing consent order to cease and desist as part of the record upon which this decision is based. ‘Therefore, It 7s ordered, That respondents Chudik Furs, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Edward H. Chudik, 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, offering for sale, or the transportation or distribution in commerce of fur products; or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution of fur products which are 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:

1. Misbranding fur products by:

A. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying any such product as to the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which such product was manufactured ; B. Failing to affix labels to fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of §4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act:

C. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products: (1) Information required under §4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form ;

Decision 56 F.T.C.

(2) Information required under §4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled with non-required information; (3) Information required under §4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting;

D. Failing to set forth all the information required under §4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder on one side of labels; E. Failing to set forth separately on labels attached to fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs the information required under §4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to the fur comprising each section; F. Failing to set forth on labels the item number or mark assigned to a fur product;

2. Mutilating, or causing the mutilation, or participating in the mutilation of labels required to be affixed to fur products, prior to the time fur products are sold and delivered to the ultimate purchaser of such products;

3. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Failing to furnish to purchasers of fur products an invoice showing all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of §5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act; B. Setting forth information required under §5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form;

C. Failing to set forth the term “Dyed Broadtail processed Lamb” when an election is made to use that term instead of “Lamb”; D. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to a fur product;

4. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement or notice which is intended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale, or offering for sale, of fur products, and which: A. Fails to disclose:

(1) 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;

(2) That the fur product contains or is composed of bleached,. dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur when such is the fact; MILGRIM, INC. 1417 1413 Sylabus (3) The name of the country of origin of any imported furs contained in a fur product;

B. Fails to set forth the term “Dyed Broadtail processed Lamb” when an election is made to use that term instead of “Lamb”; C. Sets forth the term “blended” as part of the information required under §5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe the pointing, bleaching, dyeing or tip-dyeing of furs; D. Fails to set forth separately, in advertisements relating to fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs, the information required under §5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, with respect to the fur comprising each section; 5. Making claims and representations in advertisements respecting prices and values of fur products unless respondents maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based.

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 18th day of May, 1960, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly:

It is ordered, That respondents Chudik Furs, Inc., a corporation, and Edward H. Chudik, individually and as an officer of said corporation, 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.