Morris Blumenfeld

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

IN THE 1\1/\ TIER OF MORRIS BLUy1E FELD ET AL. TRADING AS CITY FUR COMPANY CONSENT Order ETC., IX REGARD TO Tile ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COlonnssIOX A:: THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 8271. Complaint, Dec. 30, 1960 Decision, Apr. , 1961 Consent order requiring New York City furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failng to comply with labeling and invoicing requirements.

COMPLAI 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 Morris Blumenfeld and Wiliam Blumenfeld individually and as copartners, trading as City Fur Company, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have 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 interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondents Morris Blumenfeld and Wiliam Blumenfeld are individuals and copartners trading as City Fur Company with their offce and principal place of business located at 236 West 27th Street, N ew York, N ew York. PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Lahrli1Jg -\ct on .\l1gnst D. 10;52, respolH1cnts have becnand are , 650 FEDERAL TRADE CQMMISSIO:\ DECISIOKS Complaint 58 F.

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, 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 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.

PAR. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were 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. PMl. 4. Certain of said fur products \'\ere misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

(a) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereun(ler "as mingled with non-required information, in violation of Rule 29 (a) of said Rules and Regulations. (b) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in handwriting on labels, in violation of Rule 29 (b) of said Rules and Regulations. (c) Required item numbers were not set forth on labels in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules 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 Labeling Act, and in the 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 Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) Required item numbers are not set forth on invoices in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 7. The aforesaid acts and practices by respondents, as herein alleged, were and 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.

CITY FUR CO:M A:' 651 649 Decision Michael P. Hughes, Esq. for the Commission Respondents, for themselves.

INITL DECISION BY ROBERT L. PIPER, HEARllG EXAMINER The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents on December 30, 1960, 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 appeared and entered into an agreement, dated February , 1961, 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 Bureau of Litigation. Said agreement has been submitted to the undersigued, heretofore duly desiguated to act as hearing examiner herein, for his consideration in accordance with 83.25 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 offcial record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission; 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 aforcsaid 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 883.21 and 3.25 of the , 652 FEDERAL 'TRADE CO fMISSION DECISIONS Decision 58 F.

Rules or Practice and the hearing examiner accordingly makes the. following findings, for jurisdictional purposes, and order: 1. Respondents Morris Blumenfeld and William Blumenfeld are individuals and copartners trading as City Fur Company with their offce and principal place of business located at 236 West 27th Street New York, New York.

2. The 1, ec1eral Trade Commission has jurisdiction or the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents hereinabove named. The complaint states a cause of action against. saiel respondents under the Fnr Products Labeling Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, and this proceeding is in the interest of the public. It is ordered That Morris Blumcnfeld and Willam Blumenfeld individually and as copartners trading as City Fur Company, 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, manufacture 101' introduction into commerce, 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 are made in whole or in part of fur which hns 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. Failing to affx labels to fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act;

B. Setting forth on labels affxed to fur products: (1) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and R.egulations promulgat.ed thereunder mingled with non-required informat.ion;

(2) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Reguhltions promulgated thereunder in handwriting;

C. Failing to set forth on labels the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. 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; DE' COR FURS ) INC. ) ET AL. 653 649 Complaint B. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

DECISION OP Tile CO DIISSIOX AND ORDER TO FILE REPonT OF COl\Il' LlAXCE 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 April 1961, become the decision of the COImnission; and, accordingly: It is ordered That Morris Blumenfeld and Wiliam Blumenfeld individually and as copartners trading as City Fur Company, 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.