De Cor Furs, Inc.

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

initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 27th day of April 1961, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly: It is ordered, That Morris Blumenfeld and William 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.

IN THE MATTER OF DE'COR 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 8213. Complaint, Dec. 8, 1960—Decision, Apr. 28, 1961

Consent order requiring New York City furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to comply with labeling and invoicing requirements.

COMPLAINT

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 De'Cor Furs, Inc., a corporation, and Sol Morgenstein and Burton Hammer, individually and as officers of said corporation, 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. Respondent De'Cor Furs, Inc. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. Individual respondents Sol Morgenstein and Burton Hammer are officers of said corporation. They control,

Complaint 58 F.T.C.

direct and formulate, the acts, practices and policies of the corporate respondent. The address and principal place of business of the corporate respondent and the individual respondents is 130 West 30th Street, New York, New York.

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, and in the transportation and distribution in commerce, of fur products; and have manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which has 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.

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were 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 that information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was mingled with non-required information in violation of Rule 29(a) of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the 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 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 that required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 7. The acts and practices of the respondents 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.

DE'COR FURS, INC., ET AL. 655

653 Decision

Michael P. Hughes, Esq., for the Commission. Morgenstern & Winnick, by Harry Morgenstern, Esq., of New York, N. Y., for respondents.

INITIAL DECISION BY ROBERT L. PIPER, HEARING EXAMINER

The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents on December 8, 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 by counsel and entered into an agreement, dated February 28, 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 undersigned, heretofore duly designated to act as hearing examiner herein, for his consideration in accordance with §3.25 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 official 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 aforesaid 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

Decision 58 F.T.C.

of the Commission's decision pursuant to §§3.21 and 3.25 of the Rules of Practice, and the hearing examiner accordingly makes the following findings, for jurisdictional purposes, and order: 1. Respondent De'Cor Furs, Inc., is a corporation existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its office and principal place of business located at 130 West 30th Street, in the City of New York, State of New York. 2. Individual respondents Sol Morgenstein and Burton Hammer are officers of said corporation. The individual respondents control, direct and formulate the acts and practices of said corporate respondent. The address of the individual respondents is the same as that of the corporate respondent.

3. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents hereinabove named. The complaint states a cause of action against said respondents under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, and this proceeding is in the interest of the public. It is ordered, That De'Cor Furs, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Sol Morgenstein and Burton Hammer, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, manufacture for introduction, 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 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. Failing to affix 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 affixed to fur products: (1) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled with non-required information. 2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: a. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act;

IDAHO CANNING CO. (LTD.) 657

653 Complaint

b. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 28th day of April 1961, become the decision of the Commission; and, accord-