Louis Hirschfield trading as L. Hirschfield

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

IN THE MATTER OF LOUIS HIRSCHFIELD TRADI)fG AS L. HntSCHFIELD CONSENT onder, ETC. , IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE CO:1DIISSIOX AXD THE Fun I'RODDCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 8168. Complaint, Nov. 8, l.9GO-Decision, Mar. 16, 1961 -Consent order requiring Kew York City furriers to cease violating the Fur Prorluds Labeling Act by false identification in invoices of animals producing the fur in certain fur products, and by failng in other respects to comply with invoicing requirements.

1. HIHSCHFlELD 469 468 Opinion IPL_.\IN' 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 Louis IIirsehfield, an individual trading as Hirschfield, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations 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 inte.rest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges ill that respect as follows:

lail\G1L\PH 1. Louis Hirschfield is an individual trading as L. Hirschfield with his offce and principal place of business located at 259 ,Vest 30th Street, New York, New York. PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling _Act 011 August 9 , 1952, respondent has been and is nmy engaged in the introduction into commerce and in the sale, advertising, and offering for sale., in commerce, and in the transportation a.nd distriuution in commerce of fur as the terms "commerce" and fllr arc defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. \R. ::' Certain of said fur ,,-s falsely and deceptively invoiced in that such fur ".as llot invoiced as required by Section 5(b)(1) the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form precril)(c1 b:' nle Rules and Regulations promulgat.ed thereunder. \H. 4. Certain of said fur was falsely and deceptively invoiced or' otherwi:m fahely or deceptively identified wit.h respect to the mune or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur in violallOll of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAn, 3. Certain of said fur was falsely and deceptively invoice, in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that such fur was not. invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that information required under Section (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in abbreviated form in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations. PAIL 6. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent, as herein allcO'ed are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the b , Rules and Reguhttions promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive nets and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Order 58 F.

Mr. Oh(Jrles S. Oow for the Commission. .Afr. Louis Hirschfield for the respondent. INTTIAL DEcrsIOX BY I-IARRY R. HrXKES , rIEARING EXA::IIKER The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondent November 8, 1960 charging him with having violated the Fur Products Labeling Act and the rules and regulations issued t.hereunder, and the Federal Trade Commission Act through the false and deceptive invoicing of certain fur products. An agreement has now been entered into by respondent and counsel supporting the complaint which provides, among other things, that respondent admits all the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint; that the record on which the init.ial decision and the decision of the Commission shall be based shall consist solely of the complaint and the agreement; that the making of findings of fact and conclusions of law in the decision disposing of t.his matter is waived together with any further procedural steps before the hearing examlner and the Commission; that the order hereinafter set forth may be entered in this proceeding without further notice to the respondent and when entered shall have thc same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing, respondent specifically waiving all the rights he may have to challenge or contest the validity of the order; that the order may be altered, modified, or set aside in the manner provided for other orders; that the complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order; that the agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent that he has .-ialated the law as alleged in the complaint; and that the agreement shan not become a part of the offcial record unless and until it becomes a part. of the decision of the Commission. The hearing examiner having considered the agreement. and proposed order and being of the opinion that they provide an adequate basis for appropriate disposition of the proceeding, the agreement is hereby accepted, the following jurisdictional findings made, and t-he following order issued:

1. Respondent Louis Hirschfield is an individual trading as L. Hirschfield with his offce and principal place of business located at 259 west 30th Street in the City of ew York, State of New Yark. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered That Louis Hirschfield, an individual trading as L. Hirschfield, or under any other trade name, and respondent's repre- S. C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. 471 468 Syllabus sentatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, sale, advertising or offering for sale, in COlnmerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce, of fur, as "commerce" and "fur" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur by: A. Failing to furnish to purchasers of fur, an invoice showing all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (l) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing or otherwise identifying any such fur as to the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur.

C. Setting forth information required to be disclosed under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labcling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form. DECISION OF THE COl\HnSSION AND onDRR TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice the initial decision of the hearing examiner shah, on the 16th day of :Jlarch, 1961 , become the decision of the Commission; and accordingly:

It i8 ordered That the respondent herein shan, within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with the order to cease and desist. hr THE :\lATTF.R OF S. C. JOHNSON & SON, INC.

CONSBNT ORDER, ETC., r:rT Regard TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 2(d) OF Tile CLAYTON ACT DOGket 8177. Compla, int, Nov. 1960 Dccision Mar. , 1961 Consent order requiring a Racine, Wis. , manufacturer of floor waxes, furniture polishes, automotive waxes and polishes, and other chemical specialties, with annual sales in excess of $50 000 000, to cease violating Sec. 2 (d) of the Clayton Act by making payments for services or facilties furnished in connection with the sale of its products to some of its customers but not on proportionally equal terms to their competitors, such as a pannent of 3:)O for a(lvertising to a retail grocery chain ,,,itb headquarters in Burlington, Iowa.

, ,, , 472 FEDERAL TRADE COld1lnSSIO:\ DECISIONS Complaint 58 F.

CO::IPL-\IXT The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that the pflrty respondent Hamed in the, ca.ption hereof, and hereinafter more particu1nlly designated and described, has violated a,nd is now violating the provisions of subsection (d) of Section :2 of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act (U. C. Title 15 Section 13) hereby issues its complaint., stating its charges with respect thereto as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Responde.nt S. C. ,Johnson & Son, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virfue of the laws of the State of "Wisconsin :ith its offce and principal place of business located at 1525 Howe Street., Racine Wisconsin. PAn. 2. Respondent is now and has been engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of chemical specialties for household commercial and industrial uses, such as floor ,,,axes, furniture polishes, automotive waxes and polislles and insecticides and space deodorants. Respondent sells and distributes its products to wholesalers and retailers, including retail chain store organizations. Re.spondent' s sales of its products are substantial, exceeding $50 000 000 anuually.

PAR. 3. Respondent sells and causes its products to be transported from its principal place of business in the State of "Wisconsin to customers located in other States of the United States. There has been at aD times mentioned herein a continuous course aT trade in said products in commerce, as "commerce." 1 defined in the, Clayton Act, as amended.

PAR. 4. In the course and conduct of its business in commerce and particularly since 1058, respondent paid or contracted for the payment of something of value to or for the benefit of some of its customers as compensation or in consideration for services or facilities furnished by or through such customers in connection with their offering for sale or sale of products sold to them by respondent and such payments were not made available on proportionally equal terms to all other customers competing in t.he sale and distribution of respondent's products.

PAR. 5. For example, in the year 1959, respondent contracted to pay and did pay to Benner Tea Company, a retail grocery chain with headquarters in Burlington, Iowa, the amount of $350.00 as compensation or as an allowance for advertising or other servces or facilities furnished by or through Benner Tea Company in connection with its offering for sale or sale of products sold to it by respondent. Such compensation or allowance was not made avails. C. .JOl-'\ SON & SON 473 Decision able on proportionally equal terms to all other customers competing with Benner Te Company in the s le and distribution of products of like grade and quality purch sed from respondent. PAl(' 6. The acts and practices of respondents, as alleged, are in violation of subsection Id) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act.

i.llr. John Perechinsky for t.he Commission. Mr. George J. J(nehnZ of Racine, IVis. , for respondent. INITIAL DECISIO BY ,VILLLur L. PACK , I-IE.1RIKG EXAl\IINER The complaint in t.his matter charges the respondent with violation of Section 2(d) of the Clayton Act, as amended. An agreement for disposition of the matter by means of a consent order has now been entered into by respondent' and its counsel and counsel supporting the complaint. The agreement provides among other things that respondent dmits all of the jurisdictional aHegations in the complaint; that the record on which the initial decision and the decision of the Commission shall be based shall consist solely of the complaint and agreement; t.hat the inclusion of findings of fact and conclusions of Jaw in the dcc.ision disposing of this matter is \waived together with any further procedural steps before t,he hearing exam iller and die Commission; i,hat the order he.reinaiter set forth may be entered in disposition of Lhe proceeding, sneh order to have the same force fwd eiTect ns if entered after a fun hearing, respondent specifically ,yaiving any a,nd aU rights to challenge or contest the validity of such order; that the order may be altered, modified, or set aside in the manner provide,d for other orders of the Commission; that the compbint may be used in const.ruling the terms of the order; and that t.he agreement is for settlement purposes only a.nd does not constitute an admission by respondent that it l1RS violated the law as ftllcgcd in the complaint.

The hearing examiner having considered the agreement and proposed order and be-ing of the opinion that they provide an adequate basis for approprifttc disposition of the proceeding, the agreement is hereby accepted, the following jurisdictional findings made, and the following order issued:

1. Hcspondent S. C. .Tohnson 8: Son, Inc., is a ,Visconsin corporation with its offce and principal place of business Jocated at 1525 Howe Street, Racine, IVisconsin.

2. The Federal Trar1e Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this pJ'ceeding and of the respondent. 474 FEDERAL TRADE CO:MISSION DECISIONS Complaint 58 F.

ORDER It i8 ordered That respondent S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, employees, agents and representatives, directly or through any corporate or other device, in or in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of any of its products in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Clayton Act, as amended do forthwith cease and desist from:

Paying or contracting for the payment of anything of value to or for the benefit of, any customer of respondent as compensation or in consideration for any services or facilities furnished by or through such customer in connection with the ouering for sale, sale or distribution of respondent's products, unless such payment or consideration is made available on proportionaUy equal terms to aU other customers competing in the distribution of such products. DECISION OF THE CO 1lIISSION Axn ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s R.ules of Pnlctice the initial decision of the hearing examiner shan, on the 16th day of Mareb, 1961 , become the decision of the Commission; and accordingly:

It i8 ordered That respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon it of t.his orde.r, fie wit.h the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with the order to cease and desist.