Murray Madow

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

In THe Martrer oF MURRAY MADOW TRADING AS.MADOW’S CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE ‘FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 0-280. Complaint, Sept. 11, 1962—Decision, Sept. 11, 1962 Consent order requiring a furrier in East Canaan, Conn., to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to show on labels and in advertising when a fur product contained used or artificially colored fur, failing to label, invoice, and advertise products as secondhand where required, and 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 Murray Madow, an individual trading as Madow’s, 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 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:

Paracrapy 1. Murray Madow is an individual trading as Madow’s with his office and principal place of business located at East Canaan, Conn. Respondent is engaged in the retail sale of fur products by auction and otherwise.

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 Complaint 61 F.T.C..

commerce, as the terms “commerce” 5 “fur” and “fur product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. . Par. 3. Certain, of said fur products were misbr; anded in . that they" were not labeled as required under the provisions of Section.4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the mariner and form prescribed. by the Rules and Regulations. promulgated thereunder. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were: fur products without labels and with labels which failed: 1. To show that the fur product contained or was composed of used. fur, when such was the fact.

2. To disclose that the fur contained-in. the. fur products was: bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the Par. 4. Certaim 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: promulg: rated thereunder in the following respects: , 1. The disclosure “secondhand” , Where requir ed, was not. set forth: on labels, in violation of Rule 23 of said Rules and Regulations. 2. Requir ed item numbers were not set forth on labels, in violation: of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Par, 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondent in that invoices were not furnished to: purchasers of fur products as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur: Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated’ thereunder.

Par. 6. 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 pro-mulgated thereunder in the following respects: 1. The disclosure “secondhand”, where required, was not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 23 of said Rules and Regulations. 2. Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation. of Rule a of said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively adver tised | in that said fur products were not advertised as required under the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling: Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Said advertisements were intended to aid, promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of sard. fur: products.”

MADOW’S., 200 523:

d21 5 5, Decision and Order Among, and .included in. the, advertisements as aforesaid but not limited thereto were advertisements of respondent which appeared i in issues. of the Connecticut Western News,:a hewspaper published in Canaan, State, of Connecticut. Do | Among such false and deceptive advertisements of fur. products, but not limited thereto, were,advertisements which failed : i. To disclose that. the fur products were. composed of: used fur when such was the fact, in violation of Section 5(a) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. 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) (8) 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 they were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder inasmuch as the advertisements ‘failed to disclose:that fur products: were “secondhand” when such was the fact in violation of Rule 23 of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 9. 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 and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. Decision AND ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondent named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondent having been served with notice of said determination and with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondent of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to issue herein, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an. admission by respondent that the law has been violated as set forth in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission’s rules; and The Commission, having considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint i in the form contemplated by. said agreement, Decision and Order 61 F.T.C.

makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Murray Madow is an individual trading ‘as Madow’s with his office and principal place of business located at East Canaan, Connecticut.

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

ORDER It is ordered, That respondent Murray Madow, an individual trading as Madow’s or under any other trade name, 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 any fur product, or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation, or distribution of any fur product which is 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, Failing to disclose that fur products are “secondhand”, when such is the fact.

C. Failing to set forth the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

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. Failing to disclose that fur products are “secondhand”, when such is the fact.

C. Failing to set forth the item number or mark assigned toa 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 SOUTHWESTERN SUGAR & MOLASSES CO. ET AL. 525 521 Complaint , indirectly in the sale, or offering for sale of fur products and. which:

A. Fails to set forth all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

B. Fails to disclose that the fur product is “secondhand”, - when such is the fact.

It is further ordered, That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon him of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he has complied with this order.