Radley Furs, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF RADLEY 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 8369. Complaint, Apr. 20, 1961—Decision, Aug. 8, 1961 Consent order requiring New York City furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by labeling and invoicing fur products falsely to show that artificially colored fur was natural; by failing in other respects to comply with labeling and invoicing requirements; and by furnishing false guaranties that certain of their fur products were not misbranded, falsely invoiced, or falsely advertised.

RADLEY FURS, INC., ET AL. 213 212 Complaint ComMPLAINT 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 Radley Furs, Inc., a corpcration, and Herman Rifkin and Benjamin Zigman, 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:

Paracrapu 1. Respondent Radley Furs, Inc., is a corporation organized, 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 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York. Respondents Herman Rifkin and Benjamin Zigman are officers of the said corporate respondent and control, direct and formulate the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent. Their office and principal place of business is the same as that of the said corporate respondent.

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 Labeling Act.

Par. 8. Certain of said fur products were misbranded or otherwise falsely or deceptively labeled in that said fur products were labeled to show that the fur contained therein was natural when in fact such fur was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 4. 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. 5. Certain of said products were falsely and deceptively 214 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS, Decision 59 F.T.C.

invoiced in that they were not invoiced as required under the provisions of 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 that said fur products were invoiced to show that the fur contained therein was natural when in fact such fur was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Par. 7. The respondents furnished false guarantees that certain of their fur products were not misbranded, falsely invoiced or falsely advertised when respondents in furnishing such guarantees had reason to believe that fur products so falsely guaranteed would be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in commerce in violation of Section 10(b) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 8. 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 in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Mr. Harry FE. Middleton, Jr., supporting the complaint. Mr. Joseph Schindler, New York, N.Y., for respondents. Initia, Decision sy Epwarp Cree:, Heartnc Examiner The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents on April 20, 1961, charging them with having violated the Fur Products Labeling Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

On June 20, 1961, there was submitted to the hearing examiner an agreement between respondents, their counsel, and counsel supporting the complaint providing for the entry of a consent order. Under the terms of the agreement, the respondents admit the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint. The parties agree, among other things, that the cease and desist order there set forth may be entered without further notice and have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing, and the document includes a waiver by the respondents of all rights to challenge or contest the validity of the order issuing in accordance therewith. The agreement further recites that it is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint. RADLEY FURS, INC., ET AL. 215 212 Order The hearing examiner finds that the content of the agreement meets all of the requirements of § 3.25(b) of the Rules of the Commission.

The hearing examiner having considered the agreement and proposed order, and being of the opinion that they provide an appropriate basis for settlement and disposition of this proceeding, hereby accepts the agreement, and it is ordered that said agreement shall not become a part of the official record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission. The following jurisdictional findings are made and the following order issued: 1. Respondent Radley Furs, Inc., is a New York corporation with its office and principal place of business located at 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York.

Individual respondents Herman Rifkin and Benjamin Zigman are officers of the said corporate respondent and control, direct and formulate the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent. Their office and principal place of business is the same as that of the corporate respondent.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered, That Radley Furs, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Herman Rifkin and Benjamin Zigman, 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 have been 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. Representing directly or by implication on labels that fur or fur products are natural when such is not the fact. B. 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.

Complaint 59 F.TC.

2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Representing directly or by implication on invoices that furs or fur products are natural when such is not the fact. B. 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. 3. Furnishing a false guarantee that any fur or fur product is not misbranded, falsely invoiced or falsely advertised when the respondents have reason to believe that such fur or fur product may be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in commerce. 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 8th day of August 1961, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly:

Zt is ordered, That respondents herein 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.