Monique Fur Corp

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

IN THE MATTER OF MONIQUE FUR CORP., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF TIm FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-l.515. Complaint, Apr. 969-Decision, Apr. , 1%. Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturing furrier to cease Complaint 75 F.

misbranding and falsely invoicing its fur products and furnishing deceptive guaranties.

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 Monique Fur Corp. , a corporation, and Max Soroka, individually and as an offcer of 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 1. Respondent Monique Fur Corp. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondent Max Soroka is an offcer of the said corporate respondent. He formulates, directs and controls 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 236 West 26th Street New York, 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 519 Deeision and Urder they were not labelcd 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 disclose that thewere fur products with labels which failed to fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact. PAIL 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 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 wcrc 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. Hespondents 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 Hules and Hegulations 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 Federal 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 Decision and Order 75 F. fOJof Textiles and Furs proposed to present to the Commission its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, woulr charge respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Com mission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having there. after executed an agreement containing a consent order, an ad mission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts se1 forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that th, signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only am does not constitute an admission by respondents that the lav; has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers an, other provisions as required by the Commission s Rules; and The Commission having thereafter considered the matter an, having determined that it had reason to believe that the respond. ents have violated the said Acts, and that complaint should, issue stating its charges in that respect, and having thereupor accepted the executed consent agreement and placed such agree. ment on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days, no" in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in S 2.31(b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, make, the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Monique Fur Corp. 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 236 West 26th Street, New York, New York. Respondent Max Soroka is an offcer of said corporation and his address is the same as that of said cOl'potation. 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 oTdm. That respondents Monique Fur Corp., a corporation, and its otfcers, and Max Soroka, individually and as an officer 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 intro duction, 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 nwnufacture for sale, sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or MONIQUE FUR CORP., ET AL. 523 519 Decision and Order 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 any fur product by:

1. Representing, directly or by implication, on a label that the fur contained in such fur product is natural when the fur contained therein is pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored. 2. Failing to affix a label to such fur product 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. B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing any fur product by: 1. Failing to furnish an invoice, 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 an invoice that the fur contained in such fur product is natural when such fur is pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed, or otherwise artificially colored. It is further ordered, That respondents Monique Fur Corp., a corporation, and its officers, and Max Soroka, individually and as an officer 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 ordered, That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions.

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. Complaint 75 F.