Irene Stone trading as Irene of New York

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

In THE MatrTer or IRENE STONE TRADING AS IRENE OF NEW YORK ET AL. CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-805. Complaint, Aug. 5,1964—Decision, Aug. 5, 1964 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturing furrier and her office manager to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by such practices as failing, in labeling and invoicing, to show the true animal name of fur used in a fur product, to disclose when fur was artificially colored, and when fur products contained cheap or waste fur; failing, in invoicing, to show the country of origin of imported furs, invoicing furs improperly as “American Broadtail,” and failing to use the terms “Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb” and “Natural” where required; and failing to comply in other respects 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 Irene Stone, an individual trading as Irene of New York and Rose Potruch, an individual and employee of Irene of New York, 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 by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

Paracrapry 1. Respondent Irene Stone is an individual trading as Irene of New York.

Complaint; 66 EF.T.C.

Respondent Rose Potruch is an individual employed by said above respondent as office manager. She is responsible for the information placed on sales invoices and the labels attached by the firm to its products.

Respondent Irene Stone is a manufacturer of fur products with her office and principal place of business located at 16 East 52nd Street, New York, New York. Respondent Rose Potruch is employed at said address.

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 furs which have been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms “commerce,” “fur? and “fur product” ave defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Par. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that ther 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 bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact. 3. To show that the fur product was 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 misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

(a) The disclosure that fur products were composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, sides, flanks, gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap pieces or waste fur, where required, was not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 20 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 IRENE OF NEW YORK ET AL. 485 483 Complaint was set forth in handwriting on labels, in violation of Rule 29 (b) of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth in the required sequence, in violation of Rule 30 of said Rules and Regulations.

(d) Required 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 respondents in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under such Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products covered by invoices which failed : 1. To show the tive animal name of the fur used in the fur product. 2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur product was bleached, dved, or otherwise artificially coiored, when such was the fact. 3. To show that the fur product was composed in whole or substantial part of pars, tails, bellies, ov waste fur, when such was the fact. 4. To show the country of origin of imported furs used in fur products.

Par. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

-Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products which were invoiced as “American Broadtail,” thereby implying that the furs contained therein were entitled to the designation “Broadtail Lamb” when in truth and in fact they were not entitled to such designation. Par. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that thev 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 on invoices in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

B. The term “Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb” was not set forth on invoices in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

Decision and Order 66 EVT.C.

C. The term “natural” was not used on invoices to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-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, where required, was not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 20 of said Rules and Regulations. E. Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 8. 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 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 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 :

1. Respondent Irene Stone is an individual trading as Irene of New York, with her office and principal place of business located at 16 East 52nd Street, in the city of New York, State of New York. Respondent Rose Potruch is an employee of Irene of New York and her address is the same as that of said respondent Irene Stone. IRENE OF NEW YORK ET AL. 487 488 Order 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 Irene Stone, an individual trading as Irene of New York or under any other trade name, and Rose Potruch, an individual and employee of Irene of New York, 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 manufacture for sale, 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 the terms “commerce,” “fur,” and “fur product’ are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: A. Misbranding fur products by:

1. Failing to affix labels to fur products showing in words and in figures plainly legible all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Failing to disclose on labels that fur products are composed in whole or in substantial part of paws. tails, bellies, sides, flanks, gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap pieces or waste fur.

3. Failing to set forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder on labels in the sequence required by Rule 80 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. 4, Setting forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting on labels affixed to fur products.

‘5. Failing to set forth on labels the item number or mark assigned toa fur product.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by : 1. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed in each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 356-438—70 Syllabus 66 E.T.C.

2, Setting forth on invoices pertaining to fur products any false or deceptive information with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in such fur product.

3. 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. 4, 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 words “Dyed Lamb.” 5. Failing to set forth the term “Natural” as part of the information required to be disclosed on invoices under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

6. Failing to disclose on invoices that fur products are composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, sides, flanks, gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap pieces or waste fur.

7. Failing to set forth on invoices the required item number or mark assigned to fur products.

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.