Isaac Lipsitz trading as Lipsitz Furs

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

In tue Martrer oF ISAAC LIPSITZ TRADING AS LIPSITZ FURS CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 8815. Complaint, Mar. 14, 1961—Decision, July 19, 1961 Consent order requiring a furrier in Buffalo, N.Y., to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to make the disclosure “secondhand used fur” where required on invoices, and failing to comply in other respects with invoicing and labeling 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 Isaac Lipsitz, an individual trading as Lipsitz Furs, 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 interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

Paracrary 1. Isaac Lipsitz is an individual trading as Lipsitz Furs with his office and principal place of business located at 68 Allen Street, Buffalo, New York.

Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the 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, offering for sale, 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 Complaint 59 F.T.C.

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 the following respects.

(a) 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. (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 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 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) Information required under Section 5(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.

(b) The disclosure “secondhand used fur”, where required, was not set forth on invoices in violation of Rules 21 and 28 of said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 7. The aforesaid acts and practices 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.

LIPSITZ FURS 95 93 Decision Charles W. O'Connell, Esq., for the Commission. Morris Lipsitz, E'sq., of Buffalo 2, N.Y., for respondent. Inrriat Decision sy Herman Tockrer, Hearinc Examiner In a complaint issued March 14, 1961, the respondent, Isaac Lipsitz, doing business under the firm name and style of Lipsitz Furs, at 68 Allen Street, Buffalo, New York, was charged with violations of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, such alleged violations including both failure to comply with requirements for the labeling of furs and deceptive invoicing of furs, all introduced by him into commerce. After issuance of the complaint, the respondent (with the advice and agreement of his attorney) and counsel supporting the complaint entered into an agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, thus disposing of all the issues involved in this proceeding.

In the said agreement it was expressly provided that the signing thereof was for settlement purposes only and did not constitute an admission by the respondent that he had violated the law as in the complaint alleged.

By the terms of said agreement, the respondent admitted all the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint and agreed that the record herein may be taken as if the Commission had made findings of jurisdictional facts in accordance with the allegations. By said agreement, the respondent expressly waived any further procedural] steps before the Hearing Examiner and the Commission ; the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law; and all rights he may have to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist to be entered in accordance therewith. Respondent further agreed that the order to cease and desist, to be 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, shall constitute the entire record herein; that the complaint herein may be used in construing the terms of the order to be issued pursuant to said agreement; and that such 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 the agreement and the order therein contained, and, it appearing that said agreement and order provide for an appropriate disposition of this proceeding, the same is hereby accepted and shall be filed upon becoming. part Order 59 F.T.C.

of the Commission’s decision in accordance with Sections 8.21 and 3.25 of the Rules of Practice.

Now, in consonance with the terms thereof, the Hearing Examiner finds that the Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent named herein, and that this proceeding is in the interest of the public, and issues the following order:

ORDER It is ordered, That Isaac Lipsitz, an individual trading as Lipsitz Furs, or under any other trade name, and respondent’s representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution, in commerce, of fur products, or in connection 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 received in commerce, as “commerce”, “fur” and “fur product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. Misbranding fur products by:

1. 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.

2. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products: (a) Information required under Section (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled with non-required information.

(b) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder m handwriting.

3. Failing to set forth the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers showing in words and figures plainly legible 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 under Section 5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form. VIBRA-KING CO. OF AMERICA 97 93 Complaint 3. Failing to disclose that fur products contain or are composed of “secondhand used fur” when such is the fact. 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 19th day of July 1961, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly :

It is ordered, That respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after 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 complied with the order to cease and desist.