Farber Bros., Inc.

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

In the MatTrer oF FARBER BROS., INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-231. Complaint, Sept. 12, 1962—Decision, Sept. 12, 1962 Consent order requiring New York City furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing, on invoices, to show the true animal name _ of fur, when fur was artificially colored, or when fur products were made of cheap or waste fur; failing to set forth the terms “Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb” and “natural” as required; and failing in other respects to comply with 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 Farber Bros., Inc., a corporation, and Ralph Farber and Max Farber, individually and as officers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of such 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: oO Complaint 61 FVT.C.

Paracrary 1. Farber Bros., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Individual respondents Ralph Farber and Max Farber are officers of the said corporate respondent and control, direct and formulate the acts, practices and policies of said corporate respondent. Respondents are manufacturers of fur products and have their office and principal place of business at 242 West 80th Street, New York, N.Y.

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 manufacture for 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 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, as the terms “commerce”, “fur”, and “fur product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 8, Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that they were not invoiced as required under the provisions of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under such Act.

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

1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur products. 2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

3. To show that the fur products were composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, or waste fur, when such was the fact.

Par. 4. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that respondents 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. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they FARBER BROS., INC., ET AL. 563;

561 Decision and Order 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 “Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb” was not set forth in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) The term “natural” was not used as part of the information required to describe furs contained in fur products, which furs were not pointed, bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(g) of said Rules and Regulations. (d) The disclosure that fur products were composed in whole or substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, sides, flanks, gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap pieces or waste fur was not set forth on invoices in violation of Rule 20 of the said Rules and Regulations. Par. 6. 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.

Decision AND ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondents 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 respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondents 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 respondents 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 in the form contemplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

Decision and Order 61 F.T.C.

1. Respondent Farber Bros., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its office and principal place of business located at 242 West 30th Street, in the city of New York, State of New York. Respondents Ralph Farber and Max Farber are officers of said corporation and their address is the same as that of said corporation. 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 respondent Farber Bros., Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and respondents Ralph Farber and Max Farber, individually and as officers of said corporation, 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 any fur product; or in connection with the sale, manufacture for sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution of any fur product which has 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 forthwith cease and desist from 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 of the animal or animals producing the fur contained in the fur product as specified in the Fur Products Name Guide and as prescribed in the Rules and Regulations.

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. Failing to set forth the term “Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb” in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the term “Dyed Lamb.” E. Failing to set forth the term “Natural” as part of the required information to describe furs which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored. CHAS A. ROGERS & SONS 565 561 Complaint F. Failing to disclose that fur products are composed in whole or substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, sides, flanks, gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap pieces or waste fur. It is further ordered, That the 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 this order.