Manny Schaffer trading as Manny Schaffer Furs

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

IN THE MATTER OF MANNY SCHAFFER TRADI~G AS MANNY SCHAFFER FL'RS CONSEKT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLA TION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1365. Complaint, July.9, 1968-Der.'is1:on, July 1968 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturing furrier to cease misbranding and deceptively invoicing its fur products. COMPLAIKT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and by virtue of thc authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Manny Schaffer, an individual trading as :.1anny Schaffer 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 Manny Schaffer is an individual trading as Manny Schaffer Furs. Respondent is a manufacturer of fur products with his offce and principal place of business located at 146 West 29th Street, New York, New York. PAR. 2. Respondent is now and for some time last past has been 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" 118 FEDERAL TRADE COM).ISSION DECISIONS Decision and Order 74 F. 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 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 to disclose 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 by the respondent 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 to disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that s2.id fur products "were invoiced 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 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 7. The aforesaid acts a.nd 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 methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISIO:- 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 MANNY SCHAFFER FURS, ET AL 119 117 Order 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 jurisdictio!1a1 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 respondent that the law has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and other provisions as required by the Commission s Rules; and The Commission having thereafter considered the matter and having determined that it had reason to believe that the respondent has violated the said Acts, and that complaint should issue stating' its charges in that respect, and having- thereupon accepted the executed consent agreement and placed such agreement on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in S 2. 34 (b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order; 1. Respondent Manny Schaffer is an individual trading as Manny Schaffer Furs, with his offce and principal place of business located at 146 West 29th Street, New York, New York. 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 onlej' That respondent ::l1anny Schaffer, an individual trading as Manny Schaffer Furs, or any other name, 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 ,,,ith 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 ;

Complaint 74 F.

1. Representing, directly or by implication, on labels that the fur contained in. any fur product is natural when the fur contained therein is pointed, bleached dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored. 2. Failng to affx labels to fur products showing in words and in figures plainly legible aJ1 of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 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 aJ1 the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Representing, directly or by implication, on .invoices that the fur contained in the fur products is natural ,vhen such fur is pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed, or otherwise artificially colored. It is further ordel'd That the respondent herein shaJ1, 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. IN THE MATTER OF KL'PCHIK & GELMAN FURS , INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODLCTS LABELING ACTS Dockel C-1366. Compluint, July 1918-lJecision, July 968 Consent order requiring Kew York City manufacturing furriers to cease misbranding, deceptively guaranteeing, and falsely invoicing their fur products.

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 Kupchik & Gelman Furs, Inc. KUPCHIK & GELMAN FURS , INC. , ET AL. 121 120 Complaint a corporation, and John Kupchik, Bernard R. Greenberg and Sol Gelman, individually and as offcers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to a 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 1. Respondent Kupchik & Gelman Furs, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. Respondents John Kupchik, Bernard R. Greenberg and Sol Gelman are offcers of the said corporate respondent. They formulae, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth. Respondents are manufacturers of fur products with their offce and principal place of business located at 245 West 29th Street, city of New York, State of New York. PAR. 2. Respondents are now and for some time last past have been 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 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 to disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwisp artificially colored, when such was the fact. PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and decep- Decision and Order 74 F. tively 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 to disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

PAR. 6. 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 pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 7. Respondents furnished false guaranties that certain of their 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 guarantied would be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in commerce, in violation of Section 10 (b) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

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 methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION AND ORDER The Federa! Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of Certain acts and practices of the respondents named in the caption hereof, and the respondents 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 respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents 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 respondents that the law Kl;PCHIK & GELMAN Ft:RS INC. , ET AL. 123 120 Order has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and other provisions as required by the Commission s Rules; and The Commission having thereafter considered the matter and having determined that it had reason to believe that the respondents have violated the said Acts, and that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, and having thereupon accepted the executed consent agreement and placed such agreement on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in 8 2.34 (b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. nespondent Kupchik & Gelman Furs, 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 245 West 29th Street, city of New York State of New York.

Respondents John Kupchik, Bernai'd R. Greenberg and Sol Gelman are offcers 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 1S in the public interest.

ORDER It is onlcreel That respondents Kupchik & Gelman Furs, Inc. a corporation, and John Kupchik, Bernard R. Greenberg and Sol Gelman, individually and as offcers 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 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. Representing, directly or by implication, on labels that the fur contained in any fur product is natural when the fur contained therein is pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed, or otherwise artificially colored. Order 74 F.

2. Failing to affx labels to fur products showing in words and in figures plainly legible aU of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 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. Representing, directly or by implication, on invoices that the fur contained in the fur products is natural when such fur is pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed, or otherwise artificially colored. It is f",.the,' ordered That respondents Kupchik & Gelman Furs Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and John Kupchik, Bernard R. Greenherg and Sol Gelman, individually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, 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 have reason to believe that such fur product may be introduced, sold, transported, or distributed in commerce.

It is further otc/erec/ That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this Order to each of its operating divisions.

It is furthe1' onlered 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. SAM & LEO BROWN, INC. , ET AL. 125 125 Complaint