Joseph P Alanker

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

IN THE l\latter OF JOSEPH P ALANKER ET AL. TRADING AS JOSEPII P ALANKER AND SONS CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF TI-IE FEDERAL TRADE CO:\I1\IISSION AND TI-IE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 798G. Complaint, June 84, lD60-Decision, Nov. 1960 Consent order requiring furriers in Bnffalo, N.Y., to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to set forth the terms "Persian Lamb" Persian Broadtail Lamb", and "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" as required 011 iJl\oices; by nc1vertising which failed to disclose the names of animals producing certain furs or that certain fnr ))l'nducts were composed of artificially colored fur; by failing in other respects to comply with labeling and invoicing requirements; and by faning to maintain adequate records as a basis for price and value claims. CO:MPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that Joseph Pa1anker, Bernard Pal anker, and l\1arvin Pal anker, individuals and copartners trading as Joseph Palanker and Sons, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Hegubtions promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint statjng its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Joseph Palanker Bernard PaJanker, and l\larvin abnker are. individuals and copartners trading as Joseph Palanker and Sons with their of-lice and principal place of business located at 80 ,Yest Genesee Street, Bl1fl'alo 2 , K ew York. Complaint 57 F.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in the manufacture for introduction into commerce, and in the sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce.e, and in the transportation and distribution, in commerce of fur products, and have manufactured for sale, sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in ,,-hole 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.

PAR. 3. 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 Regulations promulgated thereunder.

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products 'yen~ misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in thn t they ,were not labeled in accordance "ith the Rules and Hegulntions promulgated thereunder in the follo,,-ing respects:

(a) Information requireduncler Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Aet and the Rules and Regulations promulgate, thereunder was set forth in abbrevintec1 form. in violation of Rule 4 of snic1 Rules and Regulations.

(b) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Hull's and Hegulations promulgated thereunder was mingled ,with non-n~quil'ec1 information, in violation of Rule 29(a) of said Rules and Hegulations. (c) Information required under Section -J(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Hegnlations promulgated thereunder was set forth in hand"Titing on labels, in violation Rule 29 (b) of said Ru les and Regulations. (d) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Ac.t and the Hull's and HeguJntions promulgated thereunder ",as not set forth separately on labels ",ith respect to each section of fur products composed of hyo 01' more sections containing different animal furs, in violation of Rule, 3(; of said Rules and Regulations.

(e) Required item nllmbers ,were not set :forth on In bels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Bules and Regulations. PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were :falsely and deceptively invoiced by respondents in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Ln beling Act, and in the JOSEPH PALANKER AND SONS 1095 1093 Complaint manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Aet in that they were not invoieed in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) Information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and R,egulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The term "Persian Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required "'here an election was made to use that term instead of Lamb in violation of R,nle 8 of the Regulations. (c) The term "Persian Broadtail Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required where an election was made to use that term instead of Lamb in violation of Rule 8 of the Hegulations. (d) The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required where an election was made to use that term instead of Lamb in violation of Rule 10 of the Regu-lations.(e.) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Hules and Hegulations. PAIL 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labelincr Act in that respondents caused the dissemination in commerce, as "commerce is defined in said Act, of certain newspaper advertisements, eoncerning said products, which "' ere not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 (a) of the said Act and the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder; and which advertisements were intended to aid, promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of said fur products. PAIL 8. Among and included in the advertisements as aforesaid but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the Bufl'alo Courier Express, a newspaper published in the City of Bufl'alo, State, of Ne'" York, and having a wide circulation in said State and various other States of the United States.

By means of said advertisements and others of similar import and Hleaning, not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and c1eceptiyely ac1yertisec1 fur products in that said advertisements: (a) Failed to disclose the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product as set orth in the Fur Products Name Guide, in violation of Section 5 (a) (1) of the Fur Products Labe hng Act. &:

Decision 57 F' (b) Failed to disclose that fur products contained or were composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially eolorecl fur, when such was the fact, in violation of Section 5 (a) (3) of the Fur Products Labeling Aet.

PAR. 9. Respondents in advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid made claims and representations respecting prices and values of fur products. R,respondents in making such claims and representations failed to maintain full and ade,quate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations were based in violation of Rule 44 (e) of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 10. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and R.egulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

llfr. Charles 'tV. O' Connell for the Commission. Rivo LoonB1c of Buflalo, N. , by illt. Nel'17wn P. Loo'nslc for respondents.

I~ITIAL DECISION BY EARL .T. KOLB, I-IK\JUXG EX1\Jill,\T EI~ The complaint in this proceeding issued June 24, 1960, charges respondents Joseph Pal anker, Bernard Palanker and l'Uarvin Palanker, individually and as copartners, trading as Joseph Palnnker and Sons, located at 80 ,Yest Genesee Street, Buffalo, New York, with the use of unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, in violation of the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Aet and the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

After the issuance of the complaint., respondents entered into an agreement containing c.onsent order to cease and desist ,,-ith counsel in support of the complaint, disposing of all the issues as to all parties in this proceeding.

It was expressly provided in said agreement that the signing thereof is for settlement purpose~5 only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the la'" as alleged in the c.complaint Ry the terms of said rI!2Teement, the rp8))011(lents admitted nJl the jurisdictional facts aJ1eged in the complaint and agreed that the record herein may he taken as if the Commission had made findings of jurjsdictiom:l1 facts in accordance with the allegations. By said agreement 01(:, parties expre~s1y "'Hived any further procedural steps before the hearin !2' E'xamirH'l' :111(1 the Commission; the making oJ finc1in~s of fact OJ' conclusions oi~ law: and aJl the rights , JOSEPH P ALANKER AND SONS 1097 1093 Order they may have to challenge or eon test the validity of the order to cease and desist entered,d in accordance with the agreement. Hespondents further agreed that the order to cease and desist issued in accordance with said agreement, shall have the same force and effect as if made after a full hearing. It was further provided that said agreement, together with the complaint, shah constitute the entire record herein; that the complaint herein may be used in construing the terms of the order issued pursuant to said agreement; and that said order may be altered modified or set aside in the manner prescribed by the statute for orders of the Commission.

The hearing examiner has considered such agreement and the order therein contained, and, it appearing that said agreement and order provides for an appropriate disposition of this proceeding, the same is hereby accepted and is ordered filed upon becoming part of the Commission s decision in accordance with Sections 3. and 3.25 of the R,ules of Practice, and, in consonance with the terms of said agreement, the hearing examiner finds that the Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents named herein, that this proceeding is in the interest of the public, and issues the following order: ORDER It is ordered That Joseph Pal anker, Bernard Palanker, and Marvin Palanker, individually and as copartners trading as .Joseph Palanker and Sons or under any other trade name, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction or manufacture for introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale, 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: A. l\1:isbranding fur products by:

1. Failing to affix labels to fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible a11 the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Aet.

2. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder: 1098 FEDERAL TRADE COl\ll\lission DECISIONS Decision 57 F.

(a) In abbreviated form.

(b) :Mingled with non-required information. (c) In handwriting.

3. Failing to set forth separately on labels affixed to fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs the information required under Seetion 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labehng Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to the fur comprising each section. 4. Failing to set forth on labels the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish to purchasers of fur products invoices showing all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Setting forth information required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Aet and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

3. Failing to set forth the term "Persian Lamb" where an election is made to use that term instead of Lamb. 4. Faihng to set forth the term "Persian Broadtail Lamb" where an elec.tion is made to use that term instead of Lamb. 5. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" where an election is made to use that term instead of Lamb. G. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

C. False,Jy 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 oflering for sale of fur products and which: 1. Fails to disclose:

(a) The name or names of the animal or animals producing the fur or furs contained in the fur product, as set j~orth in the Fur Products Name Guide~ and as prescribed under the H.ules and egulations.

(b) That the fur product contains or is composed of bleached dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur ",hen such is the fact. D. 1\Jabng price eJairns and representations respecting prices and val lies of fur products 111lless then' are maintained by respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such eJaims and representations are based.

DECISroX OF THE CO::\DIISSIOX X:\D onnEn TO FILE BEFORT OF COl\IPLIAXCE Pursuant to Section :1.21 of the Commission s Ru lps of Practice the initjnl decision of the hearing examiner shad, on the 5th day /).

GENERAL DISTRIBVTING CO. , INC. , ET AL. 1099 1093 Complaint of November, 1960 become the decision of the Commission; and accordingly:

1 t is ordered That respondents herein shah, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file ,,'ith 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.