Stanley Jedrysik

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

IN THE l\IATTER OF STANLEY JEDRYSIK ET AL., TRADING AS l-IU~IBOLDT FURRIERS CONSE::\"T ORDER , ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED v~OLA TION OF THE FEDERAL TJUDE CO1\I1\IISSION ~\ND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 8326. Complaint, Mar. 1961-Decision, July 1f-7 1961 Consent order requiring Batavia, N. ' furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to set forth the term "Persian-broadtal1 Lamb" on labels and invoices as required, and by failing in other respects to comply with labeling and invoicing requirements. , HUMBOLDT FURRIERS 151 150 Complaint 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 Stanley J edrysik and Eunice J edrysik, individuals and copartners trading as Humboldt Furriers, 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. Stanley J edrysik and Eunice J edrysik are individuals and copartners trading as Humboldt Furriers, with their office and principal place of business located at 202 East l\lain Street Batavia, 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, 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 La beling 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 H.egulations 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 R.egulations promulgated thereunder in the following (a) Information requiredrespects:under Section 4(2) 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 term "Persian-broadtail Lamb" ,vas not set forth in the manner required, in violation of Rule 8 of the Rules and Regulations.

152 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIO)/S Complaint ijD F. (c) 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.

(d) 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 Section 29 (b) of said Rules and Hegulations.

(e) Information required under Section 4 (:2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth separately on labels with respect to each section of fur products composed of t",o or more sections containing difrerent. animal furs, in violation of Rule 36 of said Rules and Regulations.

(f) Required item numbers "-ere not set forth on labels in \"iolation 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 "-ere not invoiced as required by Section i5(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 Hules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects. (a) Information requiredul1der 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 term "Dyed ~Iouton-processed Lamb" "-as not set forth in the manner required in violation of Rule 9 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. P..m. 7. The aforesaid acts and practices of 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 under the Federal Tr~cle Commission Act.

311'. IJaTJ'Y E. JIidd7eton. Jr. for the Commission. DaJ'ch cO J'omwn by J11'. JliUanl J. "'0011((11. Batayia, Xe"- York for the respondents.

, , HUMBOLDT FURRIERS 153 150 Decision I~ITIAL DECISION BY ABNER E. LIPSCO~IB~ I-IK\RING EXAl\IINER The complaint herein was issued on ~Iarch 15 , 1961 , charging Respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Reguhtions promulgated thereunder, by misbranding and falsely and deceptively invoicing- certain of their fur products. Thereafter, on )lny 17, 1961 , Respondents, their counsel, and counsel supporting the comphint herein entered into an Agreement Containing Consent Order To Cease And Desist, ,which was approved by the Director and Assistant Director of the Commission Bureau of Litigation, and thereafter, on ~lay 31 , 1961 , submitted to the I-Iearing Examiner for consideration. The agreement. identifies Respondents Stanley J edrysik and Eunice Jedrysik who signed said agreement as Stanley ~T. Jedrysik Jr. and Eunice ~L Jedrysik, respectively, as copartners trading as Humboldt Furriers, ,,'ith their office and principal place of business located ~t 202 Enst ~Iain Street, Bntavin, Xl"" York. A- certificate executed by counsel for Respondents, and attached to and made a part of the agreement, attests the fact that the Respondents named in the complaint, and as signntory to the agreement, are the same. persons.

Hesponclents admit an the jurisdictional facts a))egec1 in the COl11phint, and agree that the record may be taken as if findings of jllrisdictionnl facts had been duly made in accordance with such allegations.

Respondents ,,'aive any further procedure before the I-Iearing Examiner find the Commission; the mflking of findings of fact and conclusions of la",: and a11 of the rights they may have to chrl1lenge or contest the vnlidity of the order to cease find desist entered in accordance with the flgreement. All pn rties agree that the record on ,yhieh the initial decision and the decision of the Commission shall be based shall consist solely of the complaint find the agreement; that the order to cease and desist, as contained in the agreement when it shall have become a part of the decision of the Commission, shall have the same force and e.lied as if entered after a full hearing, and may be altered, modified or set aside in the manner provided for other orders: that the complaint herein may be used in construing the terms of said order: and t 11:1t the agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute fin admission by Respondents that they have violated the la,," as alleged in the complaint.

, Decision 59 F.

After consideration of the allegations of the complaint, and the. provisions of the agreement and the proposed order, the Hearing Examiner is of the opinion that such order constitutes a satisfactory disposition of this proceeding. Accordingly, in consonance with the terms of the aforesaid agreement, the Hearing Examiner accepts the Agreement Containing Consent Order To Cease And Desist; finds that the Commission has jurisdiction over the Respondents and over their acts and practices as alleged in the complaint; and finds that this proceeding is in the public interest. Therefore , co- I t is ordered That Stanley J edrysik and Eunice J edrysik partners trading as Humboldt Furriers or under any other trade , di-name, and Respondents' representatives, agents and employees rectly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the manufacture for introduction into commerce, the introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale in comcommerce of furmerce, or the transportation or distribution in , sale, ad-products; or in connection with the manufacture for sale vertising, 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 sho\ving in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labelingby each of the subsections of S Act.

B. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products: Products Label- (1) Information required lUlcler S 4(2) of the Fur ing Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form;

(2) Information required under S 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled ,with non-required information;

(3) Information required uncle-r S 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling A.ct and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting;

C. Failing to set forth the information required under 94(2) the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder separately with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs;

BROWNING KING & CO. , INC. , ET AL. 155 150 Complaint D. Failing to set forth the term "Persian Broadtail Lamb" where an election is made to use that term instead of Lamb; E. Failing to set forth the item number 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 of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of S 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act; B. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed l\Ionton-processed Lamb" in the manner required;

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

D. Setting forth required information in abbreviated form. 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 shah, on the 27th day of July 1961 , bocome the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly :

It is o1'de1'ed That the above-named respondents 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 ",ith the order to cease and desist.