Gus Pappas

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

IN THE MATTER OF GUS PAPPAS trading as GUS PAPPAS FURS CONSEI-T ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-10.58. Complaint, April 19G6-Decision, April, 1966 Consent order requiring a Chicago, Ill., manufachucr, "\vholesa1er and retailer of fur products to cease misbranding and falsely invoicing his furs.

COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and by virtue of the au- Complaint 69 F.

thority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that Gus Pappas, an individual trading as Gus Pappas Furs, 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: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Gus Pappas is an individual trading as Gus Pappas Furs, with his principal offce and place of business located at 190 North State Street, Chicago, Ilinois. Respondent is a manufacturer of fur products and sells his products both at wholesale and retail.

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 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 has 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 01' otherwise falsely and deceptively identified with respect to the name or names of the animal 01' animals that produced the fur from which said fur product had been manufactured, in violation of Section 4 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such misbranded fur products, but not Jimited thereto were fur products labeled as "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. 4. Certain of said products were misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled to show that the 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. 5. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were not labeled as required under the provisions of Section GUS P APP AS FVRS 621 619 Complaint 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 without labels, and fur products with labels 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 artifically colored, when such was the fact.

3. To show the name, or other identification issued and registered by the Commission, of one or more of the persons who manufactured such fur products for introduction into commerce, introduced them into commerce, soid them in commerce, advertised or offered them for sale, in commerce, or transported or distributed them in commerce.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in vioiation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that 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 Reguiations.

PAR. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondent in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5(b) (I) 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 to disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bieached, dyed, or otherwise artifica1Jy colored when such was the fact.

PAR. 8. 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 in that required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of the said Rules and Regulations, PAR. 9. Certain of said products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that respondent set forth on invoices pertaining to fur products the name of an animal other than the name of the animal that produced the fur from which the said fur products had Order 69 F.

been manufactured, in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, PAR. 10. 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 Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondent named in the caption hereof, and the respondent having been furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Textiles and Furs proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondent with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act; and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondent of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondent that the law has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission s rules; and The Commission, having reason to believe that the respondent has violated said Acts, and having determined that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, hereby issues its complaint, accepts said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings and enters the following order: 1. Respondent Gus Pappas is an individual trading as Gus Pappas Furs, with his principal offce and place of business located at 190 North State Street, Chicago, Ilinois. 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 ordel' That respondent Gus Pappas, an individual, trading under his own name, or as Gus Pappas Furs, or under any other trade name, and respondent' s representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in GUS PAPPAS FURS 623 619 Order 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 distri ution 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 crease and desist from: A, Misbranding fur products by:

1. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying any such fur product as to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product.

2. Representing, directly or by implication, on labels that the fur contained any fur product is natural when the fur contained therein is pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artifically colored, 3. Failing to affx labels to fur products showing in words and in figures plainly legible an of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

4. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" on labels in the manner required where an election is made to use that term in lieu of the term "Dyed Lamb. B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices, as the term "invoice " is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, 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.

2. Setting forth on the invoices pertaining to fur products the name or names of any animal or animals other than the name of the animal producing the fur contained in the fur product as specified in the Fur Products Name Guide, and as Prescribed hy the Rules and Regulations. 3. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to fur products.

It 'is fU1'ther 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 compiied with this order. Complaint 69 F.