Frank Walleck

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

IN THE MATTER OF FRANK 1V ALLECK TRADING AS ,VALLECICS FUR SHOP CONSENT ORDER, ETC, IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COl\DIISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 8045. Complaint, Ju,ly l.9GO-Deci.sion, NO1). 4, 1960 Consent order requiring a Pittsburgh furrier to tense '\violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by removing, before deli'\en' to the ultimate consumer laheJs require(l to be affixed to fur pnHlucts; by failing to set forth the term "Persian Lamb" as required on labels and invoices and the term Dyed l\loutoTl processe(l Lamb" on in'\oiees, and to revenl on labels when fur products contajlJ(~(l 1ianks: and b~' failing in other respects to eompJy with labeling and invoicing requirements. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Acr and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and by virtue of the authority :

Complaint 57 F.

vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Frank Walleek, an individual trading as 1Val1eck' Fur Shop, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated the provisions of said Acts and the Hules and R.egulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labe.ling Aet, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding b~y it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Frank Wal1eck is an individual trading as 1Valleek's Fur Shop with his office and principal place of business located at 414 Federal Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of t,he Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9 , 1952, respondent has been and is now engaged in the introduction into commerce and in the sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution, in commerce, of fur products; and has sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which had been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms "commerce fur and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Aet. PAR. 3. R,respondent has removed or caused or participated in the removal of, prior to the time certain fur products were sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer, labels required by the Fur Products Labeling Act to be aflixed to such products, in violation of Section 3( d) of said Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products "were misbranded in that they ere 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 Hegulatio:us promu 19aterl tlwre.under. PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products ,were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Ad in that they "-ere not labeled in accordance with the Hllles and R.egulations promulga,tecl t11e1'8under in the following respec.ts:

(a) The term "Persian Lamb" was not. set forth in the manner required 'There an election is made to use that term instead of Lamb in violation of Hule 8 of the said Rules and Regulations. (b) Failure to disclose that fur products are composed in whole or substantially of flanks when such is the' fact in ,-violation of. Rule 20 of sa id Rules and Hegulations.

(c) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Aet and the. Rules and Hegulatiolls promulgated thereunder was mingled .with non-required information, in violation of Rule 29 (a) of said Rules and Regulations. WALLECK' S FUR SHOP 1077 1075 Decision Fur Products (d) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunin violation of Ruleder was set forth in handwriting on labels, 29 (b) of said Rules and Regulations.

(e) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Produets Labeling Aet and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth separately on labels with respect to each seetion of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs, in violation of Rule 36 of said Rules and Regulations.

(f) Required item numbers were not set forth on labels in violation of Rule 40 of said R.ules and Regulations. PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by respondent in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder.

PAR. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Aet in that they were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) The term "Persian Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required where an eleetion is made to use that term instead of Lamb in violation of Rule 8 of said R,ules and Regulations. (b) The term "Dyed l\10uton processed Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of Dyed Lamb.

(c) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices in violation of Rule 40 of said Hules and Regulations. PAR. 8. The aforesaid acts and praetiees of respondent, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

111 r. Garland S. F eTgu8on supporting the complaint. Respondent, for himself.

INITIAL DECISION BY LEON R. GROSS, HEARING EXAMINER On July 18 , 1960: the Federal Trade Commission, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, caused its complaint to be issued in this proceeding, to which Frank "VValleck, an individual trading as vValleck:s Fur Shop, is respondent. A true copy of said complaint Decision 57 F.

was served upon the respondent as required by law. The complaint charges the respondent with violating the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in the sale, advertising and offering for sale of fur products, by removing, or causing or participating in the removal from certain of said products, prior to the time they were sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer, of labels required by said Ad and Rules to be attached thereto; and further, by misbranding and falsely and deceptively invoicing certain of said fur products. Respondent introduces fur products into commerce, and sells, advertises, offers for sale, transports and distributes said products in commerce; and has sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which had been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. After being served with the complaint, respondent entered into an agreement dated September 12, 1960, which purports to dispose of all of this proceeding as to all parties without the necessity of eondueting a hearing. The agreement has been signed by the respondent as Frank J. ,Valleck (the same person named in the complaint as Frank ,V alleck), and by counsel supporting the complaint, and has been approved by the Director, Associate Director and Assistant Director of the Bureau of Litigation of this Commission. September 21, 1960, the said agreement was submitted to the abovenamed hearing examiner for his eonsic1eration in accordance with S 3.25 of the Commission s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings.

esponclent, in the aforesaid agreement of September 12, 1960 has admitted all of the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint and agreed that the record may be taken as if findings of such jurisdictional facts had been duly made in accordanee with such allegations. Said agreement further provides that respondent waives any further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission; the making of findings of fact or conclusions of la.w; and all of the rights he may have to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with the agreement. In the said agreement the parties 'l~nt:e'i' alia agree that the record on which the initial deeision and the decision of the Commission shall be based shall consist. solely of the complaint and the agreement; that the order to cease and desist issued in accordance with the said agreement shan have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing; that the order may be a.altered modified or set aside in the manner provided for other orders; W ALLgCK' S FUR SHOP 1079 i075 Order that the complaint may be used in eonstruing the terms of .the order; and that said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondent that he has violated the law as alleged in the complaint.

This proceeding now having come, on for final consideration on the complaint and the aforesaid agreement of September 12, 1960 containing consent order, and it appearing that the order provided for in said agreement covers all of the allegations of the complaint and provides for an appropriate disposition of this proceeding as to aJl parties, the aforesaid agreement of September 12, 1960, is hereby accepted and approved as complying with S 3.21 and 9 3.25 of the Commission s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings. 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, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and issues the following order: TURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS 1. That the Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject-matter of this proceeding; 2. Frank ,Yallec.k is an individual trading as ,Valleck's Fur Shop, with his oflice and principal place. of business located at 414 Federal Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Respondent presently is, and subsequent to the ei-fective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August D, 1952, has been engaged in the introduction into commerce and in the sale, advertising, and oflering for sale in commerce and in the transportation and distribution, in commerce, of fur products; and has sold, advertised, ofrered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur ,,'which had been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms "commerce fur" and " fur product" are. defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

3. Respondent is engaged in commerce as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Ad.

4. The complaint herein states a c.cause of action against said respondent under' the Federal Trade Cmmnission Act and under the Fur Proclllcts Labeling Act and the. Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. This proceeding is in the public interest. ORDER 1 t 2:8 onlered That respondent Frank ,y aJleck, an individual trading as ,Valleck:s Fur Shop or under any other trade name, and respondents representatives, agents and employees, directly or Order 57 F.

through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduetion into eommeree, or the sale, advertising, or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce, of fur products, or in eonneetion 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 reeeived in commerce, as "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Removing, or causing to be removed or participating in the removal of labels required to be affixed to fur products, prior to the time fur products are sold, and delivered to the ultimate purehaser of such fur products, unless proper substitute labels are affixed to such fur products in aecordanee with 9 3 (e) of said Act; 2. l\1isbranding fur products by A. 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 94(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Aet;

B. Failing to set forth the term "Persian Lamb" where an election is made to use that term instead of Lamb; C. Failing to disclose that fur products are composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, sides, flanks, gills, ears throats, heads, scrap pieces, or waste fur when such is the fact; D. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products: (1) Information required under 94(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and R.egulations promulgated thereunder mingled with non-required information; (2) Information required under 94(2) the Fur Products Labeling Act and the R.ules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting;

E. Failing to set forth separately on labels affixed to fur products composed of two or more sections containing difierent animal furs the informa tion required under 9 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the R.iiles and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to the fur comprising each section; F. 11 ailing to set forth on labels the item number or mark assigned to a fur product;

3. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur pro duets by: A. Failing to furnish to purchasers of fur products invoices sh0',ing all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of S 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Aet; B. Failing to set forth the term Persian Lamb where an eleetion is made to use that term instead of Lamb; RADIO-TELEVISION TRAINING SCHOOL, INC. , ET AL. 1081 1075 Complaint C. Failing to set forth the term Dyed l\1:outon processed Lamb where an election is n:iade to use that term instead of Dyed Lamb; D. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

DECISION OF THE COl\Il\IISSIO::-;r AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE s Rules of Practice Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 4th day of November, 1960 become the decision of the Commission; and accordingly:

It is O'lYle1' That respondent Frank 'Vaneck, an individual tradsixty (60) days aftering as 'Valleek~s Fur Shop, shad, within service upon him of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he has eomplied with the order to cease and desist.