I & S Fur Company, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF 1& S FUR COMPANY, E\'C., ET AL CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION n," THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIOK AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACT Docket C-1029. Complaint, Jan. 10, 1966-Decision, .Jan. 10, 1966 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturer of fur products to cease misbranding, deceptively invoicing, and falsely guaranteeing their furs in violation of the Fur Products Labeling 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 I & S Fur Company, Inc., a corporation, and Abraham Salzman, Ruben Salzman and Abraham Topkin, individually and as offcers of the said corporation, 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 :

PARAGRAPH I. Respondent I & S Fur Company, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Xew York.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DEe IS IONS Complaint 69 F.

Respondents are manufacturers of fur products with their offce and principal place of business located at 115 West 29th Street, New York, New York.

Respondents Abraham Salzman, Ruben Salzman and Abraham Topkin, as offcers of the corporate respondent, formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth. 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" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled to show that fur contained therein was natural, when in fact, such fur was pointed bleached, dyed, tip-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 falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely or deceptively identifled with respect to the name of the country of origin of furs contained in such fur products, in violation of Section 4 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 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 Jimited thereto, were fur products covered by invoices which failed to show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product.

PAR. 6. Respondents furnished false guaranties that certain of their said fur products were not misbranded, falsely invoiced or falsely advertised when respondents in furnishing such guaranties had reason to believe that fur products so falsely guaranteed would be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in I & S FUR eo. , INC. , ET AL.

Decision and Order commerce, in violation of Section 10 (b) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 7. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein aUeged, 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.

Deeision 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 aU the jurisdictional facts set forth the complaint to issue herein, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settement 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 fonowing jurisdictional findings, and enters the fonowing order:

1. Respondent I & S Fur Company, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York with its offce and principal place of business located at 115 West 29th Street, New York ew York. Respondents Abraham Salzman, Ruben Salzman and Abraham Topkin, are offcers of the corporate respondent and their address is the same as that of said corporate respondent. 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 69 F.

ORDER , a It is ordered That respondents I & S Fur Company, Inc. corporation, and its offcers, and Abraham Salzman, Ruben Salzman and Abraham Topkin, individual11y and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in conr,ection 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 " Hiuy" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: A. Misbranding fur products by:

J. Representing directly or by implication on labels that the fur contained in any fur product is natural when the fur contained therein is bleached, dyed, tipdyed or otherwise artificially colored.

2. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying any such fur product as to the country of origin of furs contained in sucl1 fur product.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by failing to furnish invoices, as the term "invoice" is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, showing in words and figures plainly legible a11 the information l"equired to be disclosed in each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

It is fUTtheT ordered That I & S Fur Company, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and Abral1am Salzman, Ruben Salzman and Abraham Topkin, individually and as offcers of the said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and emlJloyees, directly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from furnishing a false guaranty that any fur product is not misbranded, falsely invoiced, or falsely advertised when the respondents had reason to believe that such product may be introduced, sold, transported, or distributed in commerce. It is fUTtheT OTd81" 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. MARTIN MARIETTA CORP.

Order