Derman-Helfand, Inc

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

In tue Matrer oF DERMAN-HELFAND, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS :

Docket C-1786. Complaint, May 4, 1970—Decision, May 4, 1970 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturing furrier to cease falsely invoicing its fur products by misrepresenting artificially colored. furs as natural.

CoMPpLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and 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 Derman-Helfand, Inc., a corporation, and Leon Derman and Nat Helfand, 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 it complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

Paracraru 1. Respondent Derman-Helfand, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Individual respondents Leon Derman and Nat Helfand are officers of said corporation. They formulate, direct and control the policies, acts and practices of the corporate respondent, including the acts and practices hereinafter referred to.

Respondents are manufacturers of fur products with their office and principal place of business located at 850 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, arid 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, and sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of Complaint V7 ETC.

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 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: 1. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artifically colored, when such was the fact.

2. To show the country of origin of imported furs contained in the fur products.

Par. 4. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced to show that the fur contained therein was natural when in fact, such fur was pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artifically colored, in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Par. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced with respect to the name of the country of origin of imported furs contained in said fur products, in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products containing imported fur covered by invoices which failed to show the country of origin of such imported furs. The omission of the required material fact as to the country: of origin of the imported furs implied that the said furs were of domestic origin when in truth and in fact the said furs were of foreign origin, in violation of Section 5(b)(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Par. 6. 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 ORrpDER 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 533 Decision and Order 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 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 § 2.84(b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent Derman-Helfand, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondents Leon Derman and Nat Helfand are officers of said corporation, and they formulate, direct, and control the acts, practices and policies of said firm.

Respondents are manufacturers of fur products with their office and place of business located at 350 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York.

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 ordered, That respondents -Derman-Helfand, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Leon Derman and Nat Helfand, 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 the manufac- _ ture for introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in Order 77 F.T.C.

commerce, of any fur product; or in connection with manufacture for sale, the 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 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, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

3. Misrepresenting in any manner on an invoice, directly or by implication, the country of origin of any imported fur. It is further ordered, That respondents notify the Commission at lease 30 days prior to any proposed change in the corporate respondent such as dissolution, assignment or sale resulting in the emergence of a successor corporation, the creation of dissolution or subsidiaries or any other change in the corporation which may affect compliance obligations arising out of the order.

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. PULU UAH dditadiaveusers Urey —— ~-—- wee Complaint