Sidney Bernstein, Individually, Formerly an Officer of Etelson & Bernstein, Inc

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

In tos Marrer or SIDNEY BERNSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY, FORMERLY AN OFFICER OF ETELSON & BERNSTEIN, INC.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-257. Complaint, Oct. 26, 1962—Decision, Oct. 26, 1962 Consent order requiring a New York City furrier to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by labeling and invoicing artificially colored fur as natural, failing to label and invoice bleached or dyed fur as such, failing in other respects to comply with invoicing requirements, and furnishing false guaranties that certain of their fur products were not misbranded, falsely invoiced, or falsely advertised.

Complaint 61 F.T.C.

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 Sidney Bernstein, an individual, hereinafter referred to as respondent, formerly an officer of Etelson & Bernstein, Inc., a corporation, now dissolved, 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:

ParacrapH 1. Respondent Sidney Bernstein is an individual and a former officer of Etelson & Bernstein, Inc., a corporation, now dissolved. He formulated, directed and controlled the acts, practices and policies of said corporation which, prior to its dissolution on June 7, 1962, existed and did business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its office and principal place of business located at 312 Seventh Avenue, New York, N.Y. The office and principal place of business of respondent Sidney Bernstein is 312 Seventh Avenue, New York, N.Y.

Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, Etelson & Bernstein, Inc., and respondent were 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 manufactured for sale, sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which had 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. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded or otherwise falsely or deceptively labeled in that said fur products were labeled to show that the fur contained therein was natural when in fact such fur was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored, 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. SIDNEY BERNSTEIN 1101 1099 ‘Decision and Order _ Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products with labels which failed to show that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored, ‘when such was the fact.

Par. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that said fur products were invoiced to show that the fur contained therein was natural when in fact such fur was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Par. 6. 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 thereunder.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products covered by invoices which failed to disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact. Par. 7. 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 inasmuch as information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the said Act and said Rules and Regulations was set forth in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 8. Etelson & Bernstein, Inc. and respondent furnished false guaranties that certain of their fur products were not misbranded, falsely invoiced or falsely advertised when, in furnishing such guaranties they had reason to believe that the fur products so falsely guaranteed would be introduced, sold, transported or distributed, in commerce, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Fur Products ‘Labeling Act.

Par. 9. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent, as herein alleged, have been in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and have constituted 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 Decision and Order 61 F.T.C.

Act, and the respondent having been served witth 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 in the form contemplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1, Respondent Sidney Bernstein is an individual and a former officer of Etelson & Bernstein, Inc., a corporation, now dissolved. His office and principal place of business is located at 312 Seventh Avenue, New York, N.Y.

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 Sidney Bernstein, individually, formerly an officer of Etelson & Bernstein, Inc., a corporation, and respondent’s 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: 1. Misbranding fur products by:

A. Representing, directly or by implication, on labels that the fur contained in fur products is natural when such fur is pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

ROYAL WOOLEN Co. 1103 1099 Syllabus B. 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, False or deceptively invoicing fur products by : A. Representing, directly or by implication, on invoices that the fur contained in fur products is natural when such fur is pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

B. 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. 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.

8. Furnishing a false guaranty that any fur product is not misbranded, falsely invoiced or falsely advertised when respondent has reason to believe that such fur product may be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in commerce. Lt 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.