Thomas M. Leous, Jr.

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

In THe Marrer or THOMAS M. LEOUS, JR., ET AL. TRADING AS LEOUS FURRIERS CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FED- ERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 8404. Complaint, May 19, 1961—Decision, Sept. 9, 1961 Consent order requiring Buffalo, N.Y., furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by labeling fur products falsely with respect to the animal producing the fur; by failing to show on labels and invoices and in advertising the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product and to disclose -when the fur was dyed; by failing to show on invoices and in advertising the country of origin of imported furs, stating falsely that furs were do- ‘mestic, and using the term “blended” improperly; by failing to disclose in advertising when fur products contained artificially colored fur or were composed of flanks; and by failing in other respects to comply with requirements of the Act.

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 Thomas M. Leous, Jr. and Alfred T. Leous, individually and as copartners trading as Leous 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 LEOUS FURRIERS 437 436 Complaint by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: Paracrapn 1. Respondents Thomas M. Leous, Jr. and Alfred T. Leous are individuals and copartners trading as Leous Furriers, with their office and principal place of business located at 650 Main Street, Buffalo, 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 sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution, in commerce, of fur products; and have 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 falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely and deceptively identified with respect to the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which said fur products had been manufactured, 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. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products with labels which failed:

(1) to show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product; (2) to disclose that the fur contained in the fur product was dyed, when such was the fact.

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) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not completely set out on one side of labels, in violation of Rule 29(a) of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) Required item numbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 6. 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 promul- A438 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint 59 F.T.C.

gated thereunder. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were invoices pertaining to fur products which failed :

(1) to show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product;

(2) to disclose that the fur contained in the fur product was dyed, when such was the fact;

(3) to show the country of origin of imported furs used in the fur product.

Par. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that such invoices contained statements to the effect that the furs contained in the fur products were domestic, when in fact such furs were imported.

Par. 8. 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 term “blended” was used as part of the information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe the pointing, bleaching, dyeing or tip-dyeing of furs, in violation of Rule 19(e) 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. Par. 9. 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 radio broadcasts concerning said products which were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and which advertisements were intended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale, of said fur products.

Par. 10. Among and included in the advertisements as aforesaid, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which were broadeast over Station WHEN, a radio station located in the City of Buffalo, State of New York, and having a wide coverage in said State and various other States of the United States, as well as Canada. By means of said advertisements and others of similar import and LEOUS FURRIERS 439 436 Decision meaning, not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertisements: (a) Failed to disclose the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur products as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide, in violation of Section 5(a) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

(b) Failed to disclose that fur products contained or were composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur, when such was the fact, in violation of Section 5(a) (3) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

(c) Failed to disclose the name of the country of origin of the imported furs contained in the fur products, in violation of Section 5(a) (6) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

(d) Failed to disclose that fur products were composed in whole or in substantial part of flanks when such was the fact, in violation of Rule 20 of the said Rules and Regulations. Par. 11. 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. Robert W. Lowthian for the Commission. Brennan and Brennan, Buffalo, N.Y., for respondents. Initiau Decision py Wriuiam L. Pack, Hearing Examiner ? The complaint in this matter charges the respondents with certain violations of the Fur Products Labeling Act.and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. An agreement has now been entered into by respondents and counsel] supporting the complaint which provides, among other things, that respondents admit. all of the jurisdictional allegations in the complaint; that the record on which the initial decision and the decision of the Commission shall be based shall consist solely of the complaint and agreement: that the inclusion of findings of fact and conclusions of law in the decision disposing of this matter is waived, together with any further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission: that the order hereinafter set. forth may be entered in disposition of the proceeding, such order to have the same force and effect as if entered after a ful] hearing, respondents specifically waiving any and all rights to challenge or contest the validity of such order: that the order may be altered, modified, or set. aside in the manner provided for other orders of the Commission; that the complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order; and that the Order 59 F.T.C.

agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint.

The hearing examiner having considered the agreement and proposed order and being of the opinion that they provide an adequate basis for appropriate disposition of the proceeding, the agreement is hereby accepted, the following jurisdictional findings made, and the following order issued:

1. Respondents Thomas M. Leous, Jr., and Alfred T. Leous are individuais and copartners trading as Leous Furriers with their office and principal place of business located at 650 Main Street, Buffalo, New York.

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 ts ordered, That Thomas M. Leous, Jr., and Alfred T. Leous, individually and as copartners trading as Leous Furriers or under any other trade name and respondents’ 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, cr 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. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying any such product as to the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which such product was manufactured. C. Failing to set forth on labels affixed to fur products all the information required to be disclosed by Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder on one side of such labels.

D. Failing to set forth on labels affixed to fur products the item number or mark assiened to a fur product. LEOUS FURRIERS 441 436 Decision 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. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by representing directly or by implication on invoices that fur products were do- | mestic when such is not the fact.

C. 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.

D. Setting forth the term “blended” as part of the information required under Section 5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe the pointing, bleaching, dyeing or tip-dyeing of furs. E. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to a fur product. .

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. Fails to disclose:

1. The name or names of the animal or animals producing the fur or furs contained in the fur product, as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide, and as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations. 2. That the fur product contains or is composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur when such is the fact. 3. The name of the country of origin of any imported furs contained in fur products.

4. That the fur product is composed in whole or in substantial part of flanks 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 9th day of September 1961, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly :

It ts 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. Complaint 59 E.T.C.