Kayton Fur Corporation

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

In rue MATTER oF KAYTON FUR CORPORATION ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 8393. Complaint, May 10, 1961—Decision, Sept. 2, 1961 Consent order requiring New Haven, Conn., furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by affixing labels to fur products containing fictitious prices represented thereby as regular retail prices; by failing to comply with invoicing requirements; by advertisements in newspapers which failed to disclose the country of origin of imported furs: and by failing toa keep adequate records as a basis for price and value claims in advertising. Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and by virtue of the authority KAYTON FUR CORP., ET AL. 371 370 Complaint vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason: to believe that Kayton Fur Corporation and Harry Kanfer, individually and as an officer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations 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:

Parscrary 1. Kayton Fur Corporation is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Connecticut with its office and principal place of business located at 851 Chapel Street, New Haven, Connecticut. Respondent Harry Kanfer controls, directs and formulates the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent. His 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 sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution, in commerce, of fur products; and have sold, advertised, olfered 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. Pan. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that labels affixed thereto contained fictitious prices and misrepresented the regular retail selling prices of such fur products in that the prices represented on such labels as the regular prices of the fur products were in excess of the retail prices at which the respondents usually and regularly sold such fur products in the recent regular course of their business, in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Par. 4. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by 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 promulgated thereunder.

Par. 5. 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 promuigated thereunder in the following respects: (v) Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated there- Decision 59 F.T.C.

under was set forth in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that respondents 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. 7, Among and included in the advertisements as aforesaid, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the Trenton Evening News, a newspaper published in the City of Trenton, State of New Jersey, 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, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertisements failed to disclose the name of the country of origin of the imported fur contained in fur products in violation of Section 5(a) (6) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Par. 8. Respondents in advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid made claims and representations respecting prices and values of fur products. Said representations were of the type covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act. Respondents in making such claims and representations failed to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations were based in violation of Rule 44(e) of said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 9. 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. Charles S. Cox for the Commission.

Respondents, pro se.

KAYTON FUR CORP., ET AL. 373 370 Order Inrriau Deciston sy Waurer R. Jounson, Heartne Examiner In the complaint dated May 10, 1961, the respondents are charged with violating the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

On June 23, 1961, the respondents entered into an agreement with counsel in support of the complaint for a consent order. Under the foregoing 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. The agreement 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.

The hearing examiner finds that the content of the agreement meets all of the requirements of Section 8.25(b) of the Rules of the Commission.

The hearing examiner being of the opinion that the agreement and the proposed order provide an appropriate basis for disposition of this proceeding as to all of the parties, the agreement is hereby accepted and it is ordered that the agreement shall not become a part of the official record of the proceeding 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 Kayton Fur Corporation is 2 corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Connecticut with its office and principal place of business located at 851 Chapel Street, New Haven, Connecticut. Respondent Harry Kanfer controls, directs and formulates the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent. His office and principal place of business is the same as that of the said 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 Kayton Fur Corporation, a corporation, and its officers, and Harry Kanfer, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and emplovees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with 374 ‘FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS.

Decision 59 F.T.C.

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: A. Misbranding fur products by:

1. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying such products as to the regular prices or values by any representation that the regular or usual prices of such products are any amount in excess of the prices at which respondents have usually and customarily sold such products in the recent regular course of business. B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. 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. 2, Setting forth information required to be disclosed by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form. 3. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

C. 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: 1. Fails to disclose the name of the country of origin of any imported furs contained in the fur product. D. Making claims and representations respecting the price and value of fur products unless there are maintained by respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based.

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 2d day of September 1961, become the decision of the Commission; and accordingly :

It is ordered, That respondents herein shal, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission 4 report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist. M. LOBER & ASSOCIATES CO., ET AL. 375 Complaint