U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 2— FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION; PROMOTION OF EXPORT TRADE AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER IV— LABELING OF FUR PRODUCTS

15 U.S.C. § 69c

False advertising and invoicing

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) For the purposes of this subchapter, a fur product or fur shall be considered to be falsely or deceptively advertised if any advertisement, representation, public announcement, or notice which is intended to aid, promote, or assist directly or indirectly in the sale or offering for sale of such fur product or fur—(1) does not show the name or names (as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide) of the animal or animals that produced the fur, and such qualifying statement as may be required pursuant to section 69e(c) of this title;(2) does not show that the fur is used fur or that the fur product contains used fur, when such is the fact;(3) does not show that the fur product or fur is bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored fur when such is the fact;(4) does not show that the fur product is composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, or waste fur, when such is the fact;(5) contains the name or names of any animal or animals other than the name or names specified in paragraph (1) of this subsection, or contains any form of misrepresentation or deception, directly or by implication, with respect to such fur product or fur;(6) does not show the name of the country of origin of any imported furs or those contained in a fur product.(b) For the purposes of this subchapter, a fur product or fur shall be considered to be falsely or deceptively invoiced—(1) if such fur product or fur is not invoiced to show—(A) the name or names (as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide) of the animal or animals that produced the fur, and such qualifying statement as may be required pursuant to section 69e(c) of this title;(B) that the fur product contains or is composed of used fur, when such is the fact;(C) that the fur product contains or is composed of bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored fur, when such is the fact;(D) that the fur product is composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, or waste fur, when such is the fact;(E) the name and address of the person issuing such invoice;(F) the name of the country of origin of any imported furs or those contained in a fur product;(2) if such invoice contains the name or names of any animal or animals other than the name or names specified in paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection, or contains any form of misrepresentation or deception, directly or by implication, with respect to such fur product or fur.(Aug. 8, 1951, ch. 298, § 5, 65 Stat. 178.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1957–1961 · leading case: Hoving Corp., a Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 290 F.2d 803 (2d Cir. 1961).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hoving Corp., a Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 290 F.2d 803 (2d Cir. 1961). · cites it 4× “§ 69c(b); 2 and (3) falsely and deceptively advertising in violation of five specific requirements of § 5(a), 15 U.S.C.A. § 69c (a). 3 Petitioner here claims that the Commissioner erred in permitting a collateral attack on the Examiner’s denial of the motion to amend the…”
Samuel A. Mannis, an Individual Trading as Samuel A. Mannis & Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 293 F.2d 774 (9th Cir. 1961). · cites it 5× “A Commission investigator took the advertisement to petitioner’s place of business and asked of the manager (A.”
Jacques De Gorter, & Suze C. Degorter, as Individuals & as Co-Partners, Trading as Pelta Furs v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 244 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1957). “15 U.S.C.A. § 69c (a) (1) and (6). 4 . 15 U.”
Morton's Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 286 F.2d 158 (1st Cir. 1961). “15 U.S.C.A. § 69c(a). The Commission viewed the evidence of marked down prices, of the similarity of merchandise categories, especially mink and broadtail lamb, of the fact that broad-tail was mentioned generally in the advertisements, although only two broad-tail lamb garments…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 69c(a) — 3 cases
Hoving Corp., a Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 290 F.2d 803 (2d Cir. 1961). “§ 69c(b); 2 and (3) falsely and deceptively advertising in violation of five specific requirements of § 5(a), 15 U.S.C.A. § 69c (a). 3 Petitioner here claims that the Commissioner erred in permitting a collateral attack on the Examiner’s denial of the motion to amend the…”
Samuel A. Mannis, an Individual Trading as Samuel A. Mannis & Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 293 F.2d 774 (9th Cir. 1961). “A Commission investigator took the advertisement to petitioner’s place of business and asked of the manager (A.”
Morton's Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 286 F.2d 158 (1st Cir. 1961). “15 U.S.C.A. § 69c(a). The Commission viewed the evidence of marked down prices, of the similarity of merchandise categories, especially mink and broadtail lamb, of the fact that broad-tail was mentioned generally in the advertisements, although only two broad-tail lamb garments…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 69c(b) — 2 cases
Hoving Corp., a Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 290 F.2d 803 (2d Cir. 1961). “§ 69c(b); 2 and (3) falsely and deceptively advertising in violation of five specific requirements of § 5(a), 15 U.S.C.A. § 69c (a). 3 Petitioner here claims that the Commissioner erred in permitting a collateral attack on the Examiner’s denial of the motion to amend the…”
Samuel A. Mannis, an Individual Trading as Samuel A. Mannis & Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 293 F.2d 774 (9th Cir. 1961). “A Commission investigator took the advertisement to petitioner’s place of business and asked of the manager (A.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.