Samuel Braun Furs, Inc

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

In rue Marrer or SAMUEL BRAUN FURS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF TIE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1687. Complaint, eb. 10, 1970—Decision, Feb. 10, 1970 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturing furrier to cease misbranding, falsely invoicing, and deceptively guaranteeing its fur products. ComrLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and by virtue of the authority 114 Complaint yested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Samuel Braun Furs, Inc., a corporation, and Aaron Zwiebel, Mayer Pasternack and Kurt Maurer, individually and as officers 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: Paragrari 1. Respondent Samuel Braun Furs, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. , Respondents Aaron Zwiebel, Mayer Pasternack and Kurt Maurer are officers of the corporate respondent. They formulate, direct and control the policies, acts and practices of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth. Respondents are manufacturers of fur products. with their office and principal place of business located at 380 Seventh Avenue, 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 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. Pan. 8. Certain of said fur. products were misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled to show the fur contained therein was “color added” when in fact such fur was dyed, 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. Decision and Order TT ETC.

Pan. 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 products were bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact. Par. 6. 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 inasmuch as 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(¢) of said Rules and Regulations. 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 im 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 OrpdER 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 of Textiles and Furs proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondents with riolation 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 SAMUEL BRAUN FURS, INC., ET AL. 1L7 114 : Order agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an adinission by respondents that the Jaw 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 has 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 exeented consent agreement and placed such agreement on the public records for a period of thirty (30) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in § 2.34(b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent Samuel Brann 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 office and principal place of business located at 330 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York. Respondents Aaron Zwiebel, Mayer Pasternack and Kurt Maurer are officers of said corporation. They formulate, direct and control the policies, acts and practices 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 is in the public interest.

ORDER Lt is ordered, That respondents Samuel Braun Furs, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Aaron Zwiebel, Mayer Pasternack and Kurt Maurer, individually and as officers 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, ulvertising 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 any fur product by:

467-—207T— 73 Order TT ETC.

1. Representing, directly or by implication on a label that the fur contained in such fur product is “color added” when such fur is dyed.

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. Failing to set forth the term “natural” as part of the information required to be disclosed on an invoice under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

It is further ordered, That respondents Samuel Braun Furs, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Aaron Zwiebel, Mayer Pasternack and Kurt Maurer, individually and as officers of said cor- ’ poration, 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. Lt is further ordered, That respondents notify the Commission at least 80 days prior to any proposed change in the corporate respondent such as dissolution, asssignment or sale resulting in the emergence of a successor corporation, the creation or dissolution of subsidjaries or other change in the corporation which may affect compliance obligations arising out of the order. Lt 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. EPSTEIN & SHERMAN, LNU., WL au. aau Complaint