Abraham Scherer

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

IN THE lVIATTER ABRAH~1 SCHERER. ET AL. TR.ADING AS SCI-IERER BILDNER & ALLEN CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FED- ERAL TRADE CO:!\BIISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 841'1' Ocrmplaint Iune 1, 1961-Decision, Sept, 20 1961 Consent order requiring New York City furriers to cease Yiolating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to disclose on labels and invoices the true animal name of fur and that fur was dyed, and to disclose on labels that a product was composed of bellies, and failing to ccrmply in other respects with labeling and invoicing requirements.

CO:MPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Comlnissiol1 Act and the Fur Products Labehng Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Abraham Scherer, Charles Bildner and Daniel )dlen, individually and as copartners trading as Scherer, Bilclner & AJIen, hereinafter.r referred to as respondents, have vioJnted the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, and it nppe:using to the Commission that a procee.ding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as fallaws :

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondents Abrahnl11 Scherer, Charles Bildner and Daniel Allen are individuals and copartne-rs trading as Scherer, Bild- Her & Allen with their offi.ce and principal place of business located at 150 west 28th Street, New York, 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 111manufacture for introduction into. commerce.e, and in the sale, advertising and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the. transportation and distribution, in c.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.e. as the terms "comme.rce fur and " fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were not labe.lecl as requireclllnder the provisions of Section 4 (2) of q: , .

SCHERER BILDNER & ALLEN 553 552 Complaint 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;

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

(b) to disclose that the. fur contained in the fur product was dyed; (c) to disclose that the fur product ',ns composed in whole or substantial part of bellies.

. 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 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 mingled with non-required information, in violation of Hule 29 (a) 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 set forth in handwriting on labels, in violation of Hule 29 (b) of said Hules and Regulations.

PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptivel:y 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 maIUler and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Among such falsely invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products which were not invoiced to show: (a) the true animal nmne of the fur used in the fur product. (b) that the fur contained in the fur product was dyed. PAR. 6. 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 the fur products so falsely gunranteed would be introduced, sold, transported, and distributed in commerce, in violation of Section 10 (b) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAn. 7. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Hegulntions promulgated thereunder and consbtute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

illr. Charles lV. Oonnell for the Commjssion. Jl1', Charles Go7dber ~ew York: for respondents. 554 FEDERAL TRADE COMMJSSION DECISIONS Decision 59 F.l'.

INITIAL DECISION BY HOBERT L. PIPER~ HEARING EXAMINER The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondents on June 1, 1961, charging them with hq.ving violated the Fur Products Labeling Act, the rules and regulations iss\led thereunder, and the Federal Trade Commission Act.~ by misbranding and falsely invoicing their fur products. Respondents appeared and entered into an agreement, dated . uly 11 , 1961, containing a eon sent order to cease and desist, disposing of all the issues in this proceeding without further hearings, which agreement has been duly approved by the Bureau of Deceptive Practices. Said agreement has been submitted to the undersigned, heretofore duly designated to act as hearing examiner herein for his consideration in accordance with ~ 3. 25 of the Rules of Practice of the Commission. Respondents, pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, hnxe admitted an of the jurisdictional allegations of the comphint and agreed that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been made duly in accordance with such alle~ntions. Said ngrerment further provides that respondents waive aU further procedural steps before the hearing examiner or the Commission, including the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law and the right to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered,d in accordance with such agreement. It has also been agreed that the record herein shall consist solely of the complaint and said agreement, that the agreement shan not become a part of the official record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission; that said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have viohted the law as alleged in the complaint that said order to cease and desist shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing and may altered, modified, or set aside in the manner provided for other orders and that the compbint may be used in construing the terms of the order.

This proceeding having now come on for final consideration on the eOlnplaint ana the a.foresaid agreement containing the consent order and it appearing that. the order and agreement cover all of the allegations of the complaint and provide for appropriate disposition of this proceeding, the agreement is hereby accepted n nd ordered filed upon this decision and said agreement becoming pan of the Commission decision pursuant to SS 3.21 and 3.25 of the Rules of Practice, a,nel the hearing exmniner accordingly makes the following findings, for j nrisdictional purposes, and order:

1. Respondents Abraham Scherer, Charles Bildner and Daniel Alle. are individuals and copartners trading as Scherer, Bildner 8:; Allen , SCHERER BILDNER & ALLEN 555 552 Decision with their office nnd principal place of business located. at 1:")0 ,Yest 28th Street, New York, New York.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents hereinabove named. The complaint states a cause of action against said respondents under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Federal Trade Conllnission Act, and this proceding is in the interest of the public. It is ordered That Abraham Scherer, Charles Bildner and Daniel Allen, individually and as copartners trading as Scherer, Bildner Allen 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 or manufacture for 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, 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 forthwithcease and desist from: A. :Misbranding fur products by: 1. 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; 2. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products: a. Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Ln beling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled with non-required information;

b. Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in hnnclwl'iting.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. C. Furnishing false guarantees that any fur or any 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 Pnrsnant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 20th day of 556 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONs. Complaint 59 F.

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

It is ordered 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 with the order to cease and desist.