Antonovich Bros., Inc

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

IN THE MATTER OF ANTONOVICH BROS., INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-2732. Complaint, Sept. 197's- Decisi:on, Sept. , 1975 Consent order requiring a New York City manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer of fur coats and other fur gannents, among other things to cease misbranding and mislabeling their fur products in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Appearances For the Commission: Jerr R. McDonald. For the respondents: Pro se.

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 Antonovich Bros., Inc., a corporation, and Daniel Antonovich and David Antonovich, individually and as offcers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the rules and regulations promulgated Complaint 86 F.

under the I, ur 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:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Antonovich Bros., Inc. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondents Daniel Antonovich and David Antonovich are officers of the corporate respondent. They formulate, direct and control the policies, acts and practices of the corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers of fur products with their office and principal place of business located at 333 Seventh Ave., New York, N.

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, and offering for sale in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution in commerce, of fur products; and have manufactured for sale, sold, 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 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 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 as required by said Act.

PAR. 4. Certain of said products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

(a) The term "natural" was not used on labels to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(9) of said rules and regulations.

(b) Required item numbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said rules and regulations.

(c) The true animal name of the fur used in such fur products was not shown on labels in violation of Rule 5 of said rules and regulations. (d) Required information on labels was described in abbreviated 705 Decision and Order form and not spelled out fully, in violation of Rule 4 of said rules and regulations.

(e) Required information on labels was entered in handwriting in violation of Rule 29 of said regulations.

PAR. 5. 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 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 New York Regional Offce 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 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 sta.ting 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 sixty (60) days, now in furher 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 Antonovich Bros., Inc. is a corporation organized existing, and doing business under and by virue of the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business located at 333 Seventh Ave., New York, N.

Respondents Daniel Antonovich and David Antonovich are offcers of said corporation. They formulate, direct and control the acts Decision and Order 86 FTC. practices and policies of said corporation and their address is the same as that of said corporation.

2. The ~'ederal 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 the respondents Antonovich Bros., Inc., a corporation, its successors and assigns, and its officers, and Daniel Antonovich and David Antonovich, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees directly or through any corporation, subsidiary 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 commerce; or in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce, of any fur, 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. Failing to affx 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.

2. Failng to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on a label 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 otherwse artificially colored.

3. Failing to set forth on a label the item number or mark assigned to such fur product.

4. Failng to set forth on a label the true animal name of the fur used in such fur product.

5. Setting forth information required under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form on a label pertaining to such fur product. 6. Setting forth required information on a label in handwrting. It is further ordered That each individual respondent named herein promptly notify the Commission of the discontinuance of his present business or employment and of his affiiation with a new business or 709 Complaint employment. Such notice shall include each individual respondent' current business address and a statement as to the nature of the business or employment in which he is engaged, as well as a description of his duties and responsibilities.

It is further ordered That respondents notify the Commission at least thirty (30) days prior to any proposed change in the corporate respondent such as dissolution, assignent 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 shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions. It is further ordered That respondents shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, fie with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist contained herein.