Fred Luciano trading as Lucienne Furs

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

IN THE fatter OF FRED LUCIANO TIL\DDiG AS LUCIENKE FURS CONSENT ORDER: ETC. , 1); REGARD TO Tile ALLEGED VIOLATlOX OF THE FEDERAL TRADE CO:IMISSION AXD THE F'C PRODLCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1875, Complaint, l?eb. 19"tl- ision, Feb. , 1971 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturer of fur products to ct'aSf:' mislw:1nding, deccptivdy iih' oicing and falsely guaranteeing his fur products.

COl\IPLAIXT Plll'snant 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 sa.id Acts, the Federal Trade Commi sion, having reason to believe that Fred Luciano, an individual trading as Lu­ cienne Furs, hereinafter refe.rred to as respondent, has violated the provisions of said Acts and the R.ules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, and it appearing to the Com­ mifOslon that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interef:t: hereby issues its complaint stating its charge in that respect as follows:

PAR\GRAPH 1. Respondent Fred Luciano is an individual trading as Lucienne Furs. Respondent is fl manufacturer of fur products with his ofiice and principal place of business located at 251 "'Vest 30t.h Street, New York, Kew York.

PML 2. Respondent is now and for some time last. pa.st has been engaged in the introduction into commerce and in the manufacture for introduction into commerce and in the sale advertising nd of­ fering for sale in commerce, and in the transportation and distribu­ tion for commerce. of fnr products; fL1d has manufactured for sale sold, advertised: offered for sale, transported and distribut.ed fur products which hftve been made in whole or in part of furs which have bf en shipped and received in commerce: as the, terms "com­ merce. fur:: and ;' fl1r product: arc defined in the Fur Proclncts LahcJing Act.

-IR. 3, Certain of said fur products 'Iverc misbranded in that they were not htbe)ed as required under the provisions of Seeticn 4. (2) of the. Fur Products Labeling Act. fllld in the mannrr ftIld :form pre­ scribed by the 1-ules and Regulations promulgated therennder. 396 FEDERAL TRADE CO \IMISSION DECISI01\-:S Complaint 78 F.

Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto were fur products without labels as required by the said Act and Rules and Hegula tions.

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondent in that they were not invoiced as re­ quired by Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and HcguJatiolls promulgated under such Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products but Ilot limited thereto were fut products covered by invoices which failed: 1. To show the true animal name or the animal or animals which produced the fnr llsed in such fur products. 2. To show the country of origin of imported furs contained in fur products.

PAR. 5. Respondent furnished false guaranties under Section 10 (b) of the Fur Products Labeling Act with respect to certain oT his fur products by falsely representing in \\Titing that respondent had a continuing guaranty on file TIith the Federal Trade Commission when respondent in furnishing such guaranties had reason to lJelieve that the fur products so falsely guarantied would be intl'ocluccct sold: transported and distributed in c.commerce, in violation of Rule 48(c) of said H,uses and Hegulations ullCler the Fur l)roc1ucts Label­ ing Act and Section 10 (b) of said Act.

PAR. 6. TIle aforesaid acts and practices of respondent, as herein llJJeged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the TIules R,nd Regulations promulgated thel'cnnder and constitute nn­ fair methods of competition and unfair and deccpti'le acts and prac­ tices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. DECISION ANn ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having init.iated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondent named in the caption hereof, and the respondent having been fui'lished t118rcafter with a copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Consumer Protec­ tion proposed to present to the Commission for its consi(1( ratioll and ,yhieh: if issued by the Commissioll would charge respondent w th vi­ olation of the Federal Trade Commission ;\ct and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and The respondent find counsel for the COlnmission having thereafter exec.uted an a.agreement containing a c.onscnt order, fin admission by the respondent of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the afore­ said draft of complaint: a statement that the signing of sa,id agree­ L'(CIE:: E FURS 397 305 Decision and Order ment is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an ad­ mission 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 hav­ ing 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 agreement and placed such agreement on the public record for a pe­ riod or thirty (30) days, now in rurther conrormity with the proce­ dure prescribed in 34 (b) or its Rules, the Commission hereby is­ sues its complaint, makes the rollowing jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Fred Luciano is an individual trading as Lucienne Fm:s with his offce and principal place of business located at 251 "IV est 30th Street, X cw York, 1' ew York. esponclent is a manufacturer of fur products. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of tbe proceeding and of the respondent and the proceeding is b1 the public interest.

ORDER It i8 ordered That respondent Fred Luciano, individually and, trading as Lucienne Furs or under any ot.her trade name: and re­ spondent' 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, adver­ tising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or dis­ tribution in commerce, of any fur product; or in connection with the manufacture for sale, sale, advertising, offering for sale, transporta­ tion 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 nnd desist from: 1. ;\Iisbranding any fur product by failing to affx a label to such fnr product showing in ,words and in figures pla.inly legible nil of the information required to be disclosed by each or the snbsectiol1s of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing any fur product by failing to furnish an invoice, as the term "invoice" is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, showing in words and figures plainly 1e­ 398 FEDERAL TRADE COM 1:ISSIO)r DECISIONS Dedsion and Order 78 F.'l\C. gible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

It is furtlceT ordered That respondent Fred Luciano, individually and trading as Lucienne Furs or under any other trade name and respondent' s 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 mis­ branded, falsely invoiced or falsely advertised wheu the respondent has reason to believe that such fur product may be introduced, sold transported, or distributed in commerce.

It i8 further oTdoTed 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