Max Bogen & Co., Inc

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

In Tue Martrer oF MAX BOGEN & CO., 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-2203. Complaint, May 1, 1972—Decision May 1, 1972 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturer of fur products to cease misbranding and deceptively invoicing its merchandise. ComMPLAINT 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 Max Bogen & Co., Inc., a corporation, and Ernest Bogen, individually and as an officer 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:

Paracrary 1. Respondent Max Bogen & Co., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondent Ernest Bogen is an officer of the corporate respondent. He formulates, directs and controls the policies, acts and practices of the corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth. 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, and in the sale, advertising, Complaint 80 F.T.C.

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 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 otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact. Par. 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 artificialy 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, 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 the fur products so falsely guarantied would be introduced, sold, transported and 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 MAX BOGEN & CO., INC., ET AL. 709 707 Decision and Order 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 Division of Textiles and Furs, Bureau of Consumer Protection 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 Section 2.84(b) of its rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent Max Bogen & Co., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondent Ernest Bogen is an officer of the corporate respondent. He formulates, directs and controls the policies, acts and practices of the corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth. Respondents are manufacturers of fur products with their office and principal place of business located at 850 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.

Decision and Order 80 F.T.C.

ORDER It is ordered, That Max Bogen & Co., Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Ernest Bogen, 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 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 any fur product by:

1. Representing directly or by implication on a label that the fur contained in such fur product is natural when such tur is bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

2. Failing to affix a label to such fur product showing in words and 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, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

It is further ordered, That Max Bogen & Co., Inc., a ccrporation, and its officers, and Ernest Bogen, 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. 707 Complaint It is further ordered, That respondents notify the Commission at least 80 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 or dissolution of 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 shal] forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions. It ts further ordered, That 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.