Davidson Brothers, Inc.

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

In THE Marrer or DAVIDSON BROTHERS, INC.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 8356. Complaint, Apr. 14, 1961—Decision, Aug. 24, 1961 Consent order requiring a Detroit furrier to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by setting forth on labels and invoices and in advertising the names of animals other than those producing the fur in the fur products concerned, and by failing in other respects 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 Davidson Brothers, Inc., a corporation, 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 Complaint 59 F.T.C.

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:

ParacrarH 1. Davidson Brothers, Inc. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan with its office and principal place of business located at 1200 East McNichols, Detroit, Michigan. 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, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the 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 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 in that they were not labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Fur Preducts 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 that the respondent, on labels attached thereto, set forth the name of an animal other than the name of the animal that produced the fur, in violation of Section 4(3) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Par. 5. 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) Labels affixed to fur products did not comply with the minimum size requirements of one and three-quarter inches by two and three-quarter inches, in violation of Rule 27 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 mingled with non-required information, in violation of Rule 29(a) of said Rules and Regulations. (c) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth in the required sequence, in violation of Rule 380 of said Rules and Regulations. (d) Required item numbers were not set forth on labels, in viola-. tion of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. DAVIDSON BROTHERS, INC. 335 333 Decision Par. 6. 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. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that respondent set forth on invoices pertaining to fur products the name of an animal other than the name of the animal that produced the fur, in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Par. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that respondent caused the dissemination in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in said Act, of certain newspaper advertisements, concerning said products, which were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(a) of the said Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder; and which advertisements were intended to aid, promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of said fur products.

Par. 9. Among and included in the advertisements as aforesaid, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondent which appeared in issues of the Cleveland Press, a newspaper published in the City of Cleveland, State of Ohio, and having a wide circulation in said State and various other States of the United States. By means of said advertisements and others of similar import and meaning, not specifically referred to herein, respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertisements: (a) Contained the name or names of an animal or animals other than those producing the fur contained in the fur product in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 10. .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.

Mr. Harry E. Middleton, Jr., supporting the complaint. Mr. Irwin I. Cohn, Detroit, Mich., for respondent. TxrriaL Decision sy Leon R. Gross, Hearrne Examiner On April 14, 1961, the Federal Trade Commissicn issued a complaint against respondent Davidson Brothers, Inc., a corporation, 11 336 ' FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Decision 59 F.T.C.

which it was charged with violating the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder by falsely or deceptively labeling and invoicing fur products sold by respondent in interstate commerce. A true and correct copy of the complaint was served upon respondent as required by law. Thereafter respondent appeared by counsel and agreed to dispose of this proceeding without a formal hearing pursuant to the terms of an agreement dated June 26, 1961, containing consent order to cease and desist. The agreement was submitted to the undersigned hearing examiner on July 8, 1961, in accordance with $8.25 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings. The agreement purports to dispose of this proceeding as to the respondent and contains the form of a consent cease-anddesist order which the parties have represented is dispositive of the issues involved in this proceeding. The agreement has been signed by the corporate respondent by its vice president, by the attorneys for both parties, and has been approved by the Assistant Director and Acting Director of the Bureau of Litigation of the Federal Trade Commission. In said agreement respondent admits all of the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint and agrees that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been made in accordance with such allegations. In the agreement the respondent waives: (a) any further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission; (b) the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law; and (c) all rights respondent may have to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with the agreement. The parties further agree, in said agreement, that the record on which the initial decision and the decision of the Commission shall be based shall consist solely of the complaint and the agreement; that. the agreement shall not become a part of the record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Federal] Trade Commission: that the order to cease and desist entered in this proceedine by the Commission may be entered without further notice to respondent, and when so entered such order will have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing. Said order may be altered, modified or set aside in the manner provided for other orders. The complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order.

The parties have covenanted that the said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondent that it has violated the law as alleged in the complaint. DAVIDSON BROTHERS, INC. 337 333 Findings This proceeding having now come on for final consideration on the complaint and the aforesaid agreement of June 26, 1961, containing consent order, and it appearing that the order which is approved in and by said agreement disposes of all the issues presented by the complaint as to all of the parties involved, said agreement is hereby accepted and approved as complying with §§ 3.21 and 3.25 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings. The undersigned hearing examiner, having considered the agreement and proposed order and being of the opinion that the acceptance thereof will be in the public interest, makes the following findings and issues the following order: FINDINGS 1..The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding; and this proceeding is in the public interest;

2. Respondent Davidson Brothers, Inc., is a corporation existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan, with its office and principal place of business located at 1200 East McNichols in the City of Detroit, State of Michigan; 3. Respondent is engaged in commerce as “commerce” is defined in the pertinent statutes which are invoked by the complaint filed herein. Now, therefore, It is ordered, That respondent Davidson Brothers, Inc., a corporation, and its officers 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, or offering for sale in commerce, or the 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:

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 the name or names of any animal or animals other than the name or names provided for in Section 4(2) (A) of the Fur Products Labeling Act; 693-490—64—-23 Decision 59 F.T.C.

C. Affixing to fur products labels that do not comply with the minimum size requirements of one and three-quarter inches by two and three-quarter inches;

D. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled with nonrequired information;

E. Failing to set forth the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the required sequence; F. Failing to set forth required item numbers on labels as required by Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations; 2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products 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;

B. Setting forth on invoices pertaining to fur products the name or names of any animal or animals other than the name or names provided for in Section 5(b)(1)(A) of the Fur Products Labeling Act;

3. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement or notice which is intended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale, or offering for sale of fur products and which: A. Sets forth the name or names of any animal or animals other than the name or names provided for in Section 5(a)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

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 24th day of August 1961, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly :

It is ordered, That respondent Davidson Brothers, Inc., a corporation, shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with the order to cease and desist.

CHURCHILL SPORTSWEAR CO., INC., ET AL. 339 Complaint