Leon Hecht Fur Corp

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

‘In rar Matrer or LEON HECHT FUR CORP., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-2280. Complaint, Sept. 18, 1972-—Decision, Sept. 13, 1972. Consent order requiring a New York City retailer of fur products, among other things to cease misbranding and deceptively invoicing its fur products. 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 Leon Hecht Fur Corp., a corporation, and Leon Hecht, 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: 8860 ro. .- Complaint...

Paragrary 1. Respondent, Leon Hecht Fur Corp. is a:corporation organized, existing and doing business. under. and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York... =.

Respondent:Leon Hecht is.an. officer of the. corporate. respondent and formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies. of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth. - Respondents are retailers of fur products with their office and principal place of: business located. at 150 West, 80th Street, New York, New York.

- Par: 2. Respondents. have been and are now engaged j in the intro: duction 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.

Par. 3: Certain of said fur products were misbranded i 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 without labels.

Par. 4. 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 show that the fur product contains or is composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur when such is the fact. Par. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that certain of 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. 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, in that 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 Y g) of said rules and regulations.

338 FEDERAL “TRADE’ COMMISSION ‘DECISIONS Decision‘and Order 81. FTC.

‘Par. 7. 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 and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. :

Ductston AND Orvrr “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 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 2.34(b) of its rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Leon Hecht Fur Corp. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondent Leon Hecht is an officer of the said corporation. He formulates, directs, and controls the acts, practices and policies of the said corporation.

Respondents are retailers of fur products with their office and principal place of business located at 150 West 30th Street, New York, New York.

‘LEON: HECHT’ FUR CORP.; ET AL: 339 336. Fs Decision ‘and: Order 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 T tis ‘ordered, That respondent Leon Hecht Fur Corp:, oy corporation, its successors and assigns, and its officers, and respondent Leon Hecht, individually. and. as an officer of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly | or through any corporation, subsidiary, division, or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising or offering forsale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce, of any fur product; or in connection ‘with 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:

A. ‘Misbranding fur products by :

Failing to affix labels to fur oducts showing i in words and figures plainly legible all of the information required ‘to be disclosed by Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. B. Falsely and deceptively i invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices, 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 products is “natural” when such fur is pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

3. Failing to set. forth the term “Natural” as part of the information required to be disclosed on invoices under the Fur Products Labeling Act and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

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 340 FEDERAL TRADE) COMMISSION. DECISIONS Decision and Order 81 F.T.C;

any. other: change 1 In: the corporation which. may affect: compliance obligations arising out of this order..- It is further ordered, That the respondent corporation shall forth: with distribute a copy of this order.to each of its operating divisions. It is further ordered, That the individual respondent named herein promptly notify the Commission-of the discontinuance of his present business or employment and of his’ affiliation’ ‘with a new business or employment. Such’ notiée’ ‘shall: include ‘réspondent’s éurrent business or employment in which he is- engaged ai as well as a description of his duties and responsibilities. ~~ | Itis further ordered, That the responidents 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 hs have complied with this order. _ ;