Ann H. Hartman doing business as Fashion Academy

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

IN 'rhe l\IA'ITER OF ANN H. HARTMAN DOING BUSINESS AS FASHION ACADK\1:Y ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE Could\IlSSIOK ACT Docket 6194. Complaint, Mar. 1954-Decision, Jan. 13, 1955 Consent order requiring the operator of a vocational school in New York Oity offering courses in fashion designing, to stop granting "Fashion Academy Gold l\Iedal Awarus" to manufacturers and distributors of various products which enabled the recipient to advertise falsely that his product bad been granted a distinction as a result of a competitive contest. Before Ah. Earl J. Kolb hearing examiner. Mr. Edward F. Downs for the Commission. Mr. Charles Segal and Ah. 111a"rice Knapp, of New York City, for Ann H. Hartman.

Ah. Hemy Steinberg, of New York City, for Alexander H. Cohen. CO: IPLUXT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Ann H. I-Iartman an individual doing business as Fashion Academy and Alexander I- Cohen, an individual doif!g business as Alexander II. Cohen and Associates, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said 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 Ann H. I-Iartman is an individual doing business under the name Fashion Academy with her principal offce and place of business located at 812 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York. Fashion Academy is a vocational school offering courses in fashion designing and operated by this respondent. Respondent Alexander H. Cohen is an individual doing business 1111(1er the name Alexander H. Cohen and ..\.associates ,\'ith his offceand principal place of business located at 5DS :Madison venlle, New York, 1\e". York.

PAIL 2. Respondents Ann II. I-Illrtman and Alexander H. Cohen, in cooperation with each other, arc now and for more than one year last FASHION ACADEMY ET AL. 593 592 Complaint past h 1 VB been engaged in the practice of making so-caned a wards to manufacturers and distributors or various products. Said award is designated the ;'Fashion Academy Gold yIedal A ward" and it is designed and intended by respondents to bc used by the recipients thereof in advertising the products ror which it is granted. PAIL 3. In the course or granting the aforesaid a1\ard respondents send and have sent said award, accompanying citation and other correspondence and information, and products submitted for considera tion, at the request or respondents, from the State or ew Yark to recipients and prospective recipients or said award who were and are located in the various other States of the United States. Respondents also maintain and at all times mentioned herein have maintained a constant course or correspondence from their offces within the State of N ew York ,with recipients and prospective recipients of their said award who were and are located in the various other States of the "Gnited States.

The activities of respondencs as herein described constitute acts and practices in commerce among and between the various States of the United States as "commerce)' is defined in the Federal Trade Com- Jnission Act.

PAR. 4. By making or granting the aforesaid "award " and through the use of the name "Fashion Academy Gold YIedal Award" in connection therewith, respondents represent directly or by implication and place in the hands of othm's the means of representing directly or by implication:

(a) That products for which said "award" is or has been presented have been selected to receive it because they have been adjudged the most outstanding from the standpoint of design, quality or utility in their respective fields of competition, in a competitive contest in which a representative number of competing products were considered and in which all competitive products were afforded an equal opportunity to compete.

(b) That products receiving said "award" were selected by a group of impartial and qualified individuals representing the field of fashion (lesign as a whole.

(c) That the purpose of said "award" is to encourage and give recognition to products of the most outstanding design in their respective fields of competition without regard to any financial reward inuring to the benefit of the grantors thereof. PAR. 5. The aforesaid representations are false, misleading and deceptive. In truth and in fact:

594 FEDERAL TRADE COM11ISSION DECISroXS Complaint 31 1" T. C. (a) Products for which the tforesajcl "award" is or has been granted have not been adjudged the most outstanding in their respective fields of competition because no competitive contests are or have been held in which a representative number of competing products were entered nor were all competitive products afforded an equal opportunity to be considered.

(0) Products receiving said a.warcF are not selected by it group of impartial and qualified individuals representing the field of fashir)ll design as a whole, but are selected by respondent Hartman, or by her and others who are under her control with the approval of respondent CohEm.

C,:) The purpose of said "award" is not to encourage or gin:, l'e,cognixon to products of outstanding design in their respective fields of competition, but rather it is actually the essential element of a plan or scheme engaged in by respondents whereby they enrich themselves l,crsonally by (1) obtaining contributions from recipients of said award" to a so-caned scholarship fund which contributions inure to the benefit of respondent I-:artman as the sole owner of :Fashion Academy, (2) obtaining the employment of respondent Cohen as public relations counsellor, hy recipients of the "award" to exploit jts receipt, and (3) collecting a fee from recipients, allegedly to cover' the "expenses" of making the ;;award which fee is shared by 1'0. ponc1ents Hartman and Cohen.

PAH. 6. Respondents by granting the aforesaid ;' Fashioll Academy Gold fec1al A1vard" to manufacturers and dist.ributors, as hereinabove set forth, who use it in advertising the products for which it has Leen received, place and han: placed in the hands of reeipients the means and instnllnentaJity whereby such recipients baye becll and are enabled to mislead and deceive members of the purchasing and ':011snming public as to the significance or nature of said "a,yard. PAR. 7. The acts and practices or respondents as aforesaid have had and now have the tendency and capacity to mislead and deceive (1 substantial portion of the purchasing and cOlJsmning public as to the significance or nature of the aforesaid "award" and as a result thereof have caused members or thb public to purchase a substantial number or the products receiving said "awarcl.

PAR. 8. The aforesaid acts and practices or respondents as herein alleged are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices jn commerce within the intent a.nd meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. FASHION ACADE:MY ET AL. 595 592 Decision DECISION OF THE COJDnSSIOX Part1Hmt to H.llle XXII of the Commission s Rules of Practice, and as set forth in the Commission s "Decision of the Commission and Order to FiJe Report of Compliance, dated January 13, 1955, the initial decision in the instant matter of hearing examiner ERrl T. Kolb fis set ont as follo1\s, becarne on that elate the decision of the Commission.

INITIAL DECISro:: BY EARL ,J. KOLE, HEAIUXG RXA1.HXEH The complaint. in this proceeding charges the respondents Ann Ii. IIartman, an individual doing business as Fashion Academy, and Alexander II. Cohen, an individual doing business as Alexander I-1. Cohen nnd As oe1ates, \\'1ih lllfnir and deceptive acts and practices in connection with the issuance of awards, to manufacturers and distrib nt.ors of various products, known as the "Fashion Academy Gold :;fedal Alfard " in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Answers "were filed by said respondents Rnd testimony and other evi.dencc were introllucecl in support of the allegations of the complaint before the undersigned Hearin Examiner.

Before the taking of any testimony 111 opposition to the allegations of the complaint the respondent Alexander II. Cohcn fied a motion to dismiss this proceeding as to him, which motion 1\as supported by an affdavit to the effect that he lwei severed a11 conneclio,"s with the Fashion Academy prior to the issuance of the complaint herein and tlwt he will not engage in a,ny of the practices charged in the complaint in the future.

Thereafter, respondent Ann II. Hartman entered into a stipulation :for a consent order with cOllnsel sllpporting t11e complaint dated N 0vember 22, 1954. By the terms of said stipulation said respondent Ann H. Hartman admitted a11 of the jurisdictional allegations set forth in the complaint and expressly withdrew the an Wel' previously filed herein by her, ,,,waiving a hearing before the Flearing Examiner or the Commission, the making of findings of fact a.nd conclusions of Jaw before the 1-Iearing Examiner or the Commission, the filing of exceptions and and argument before the Commission, and all further and athe,r procedure before the I-Iearing Exa,miner and the Commission to which she may be entitled under the Federal Trade Commission Act or t.he Rules of Practice of the Commission. In said stipula tion said respondent further Rgreecl that the order hereinafter set forth shall have the same force and effect as if made after a fuJl hear- Order 51 F. T. C.

ing, presentation of evidence and findings and conclusions thereon and specifically waived any and all right, power and privilege to challenge or contest the validity of said order. It was further provided in said stipulation that the complaint shall constitute the entire record herein as to said respondent Ann H. Hartman, and that said complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order and that the order may be altered, modified or set aside in the manner provided by statute for other orders of the Commission.

The Hearing Examiner having given consideration to said motion and affdavit fied in support thereof, and answer of counsel supporting complaint not opposing said motion, the stipulation for consent order hereinabove described, and being now duly advised in the premises hereby accepts said stipulation for eansent order submitted by respondent Ann H. Hartman and issues the follmying order: ORDER I t is ordered That respondent Ann I-I. Hartman, individually and doing business as Fashion Academy, whether doing business under this name or any other name, her representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from:

Granting, making or presen6ng any award, citation or other such commendation, under the name "Fashion Academy Gold Metal Award" or under any other name, in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, which represents directly or by implication, or placing in the hands of others the me-ans or instrumentality whereby they are enabled to represent, directly or by implication, that competitive contests are or have been conducted by impartial and qualified individuals to determine the relative quality or merit.s of competing products or that any product has been presenteel with an awarel or other distinction as a result of a competitive contest, unless such a. contest has actually been conducted in which a representative number of competing products were afforded an opportnnity to compete.

It i8 further ordered That the complaint herein be dismissed as to the respondent Alexander I-I. Cohen, an individual doing business as Alexander H. Cohen and Associates, without prejudice to the right of the Commission to institute further proceedings should other a,ud fut.ure facts warrant.

FASHION ACADEMY ET AL. 597 092 Order Order. TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE It i8 ordered That the respondent Ann H. Hartman, an individual doing business as Fashion Academy, shall, within sixty (60) days file with the Conuission a 'reportafter service upon her of this order, in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which she has complied with the order to cease and desist (as required by said declaratory decision and order of January 13, 1955J. 598 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSlOX DECISIO Complaint 51 F. T. C. Ix Tile IATTER OF NATHAN Farmer ET AI,. DOL\G lJ1:SINESS "S S. Farmer AND SOKS CONSJ.;l\n' ORDER , ETC., I REGARD TO THE .ALLEGED YIOLATIOX OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COllDIISSIOX ;-\CT AXD OF TUE FlJR P1WDUCTS LABELING ACT Docket 6234. Comp/.aint., Sept. 1i. 1954-Dccision, Jon. lv 1955 Consent order requiring a furder in New York City to cease violating the Fur Products Laheling Act by invoicing which failed to show clearly the name of the animal producing certain ful and the country of origin of imported furs; ane! by using cIescriptive terms which denoted false geographical origin.

Before 1111'. open 11. L(l1 ghlin hearing exa.miner. Ait. John J. McNally for the Commission. JI1' . Leonard Feldman of Xew York City, for respondents. CO.i\PLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and by virtue of the authority vesteel in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that Kathan Farber, Jack Farber, Samuel Farber and Jiax Farber, individuals and copartners doing business as S. Farber and Sons, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the R.ules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling i\.ct, 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 us follows:

Paragraph 1. Respondents Kathan Farber, Jack Farber, Samuel Farber and :Max Farber are individuals and copartners trading as S. .Farber and Sons with their principal offce and place of business lo T ew Yorkcated at 345 Seventh A venue, New Y ork PAn. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9 1952, respondents have introduced into commerce sold and oflercd for sale in commerce, and have transported and distributed in commerce, as "commerce:' is defined in the Fur Products I-"labeling Act, fur, as "fnr" is deiined in said Act. Pall 3. Certain of said fur was falsely or dec.eptiveJy invoiced in that:

S. FARBER & SONS 599 098 De('ision (a) the respondents did not invoice such :fur to show: (1) t.he DalIlC or names of the anirnal producing the fur, as set forth in the Fur Products ame Guide and as permitted under the Rules and H.egulations.

(2) the name of the country of origin of imported fur. (b) the respondents used certain t.terms on invoices descriptive of the breed: species, strain 0)" eolol'.1ng 01 an animal which connoted a false geographical origin of the animal Exemplifying said practice but not limited thereto, is respondents' use of the term "Aleutian l\1:nk " in violation of the Fur Products La.beling Act and Rule 7 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. PAR. 4. The acts and practices of the respondents, as herein alleged Were in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Art and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted unfair and deceptive acts and practices Hnd unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. DECTSWl' OF THE CO:.Duly3IQj';' Pursuant to Rule XXII of the Commission s Rule.s of Practice, and as set forth in the Commission Decision of the Commission and Order to File Report of Compliance " dated .January 16 , 1955 , the initial dccision in the instant matter of hearing examiner Loren II. Laughlin, as set out as fo11oy,s. became on that date the decision of the Commission.

IXlTL\L DECISION BY LORE); H. LAUGI-1LIN , HEARIXG EXAIHIXER Fp(1tral Tra(le Commission (hrreinaftrI' referred to as the Commission) on September 17, 105'J, issl1ed its complaint herein under the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Fur Products Labeling Act against the above-named respo))dents charging them in certain )xlrticu1ars \vit.h hn ving violated the provisions of sa.id Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Commission under the Fur Products Labeling Act. The respondents ere duly served with vrocess and thereafter requested and obtained time from the Hearing Examiner .in which to file ll1S\Ter, which time was last extended to December 8 IDS4.

On Xovember 2;:J 1854, the respondents, however, stipulated in writing with cOllnsel supporting the complaint, therein waiving tlIB TIling of an ans\ver and agreeing that a consent order against the ;ponclent:s be entered herein in terms identical with t1w ;e contained in the notice issued and served on respondents as a part of the COln- 600 FEDERAL TRADE C01L'\ISSION DECISIONS Decision 51 F. T. C.

plaint herein. Such written stipulation was approved in writing by the Director and Assistant Director of the Commission s Bureau of Litigation.

By said stipulation, among other things, respondents have admitted all the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and agreed that the record herein may be taken as if the Commission had made findings of jurisdictional facts in accordance with such allegations; that the parties expressly waive a hearing before the Hearing Examiner or the Commission and all further and other procedure to which the respondents may be entitled under the Federal Trade Commission Act or the Rules of Practice of the Commission; and that the order to cease and desist issued in accordance with said stipulation shall have the same force and effect as if made after a full hearing, the parties having waived specifically therein any and all right, power or privilege to challenge or contest the validity of said ordcr. It was also stipulated and agreed therein that the complaint herein may be used in con" struing the terms of the order provided for in said stipulation, and further, that the signing of said stipulation is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint. The aforesaid .stipulat.ion for consent order as so approved was submitted on November 30, 1954, to the above-named hearing examiner for his consideration in accordance with Rule V of the Commission Rules of Practice. And upon dne consideration of the complaint and the stipulation for consent order, which is hereby accepted and ordered fied as part of the record herein, it having been stipulated they shall be the entire record herein on which such order may be entered, the hearing exa,miner finds that the Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of each and all of the parties respondent herein; that the complaint states a legal cause for complaint under the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Commission under the latter Act against the respondents as a whole and in each of the particulars alleged tberein; that this procceding is in the interest of the public; that the following order as proposed in said stipulation is appropriate for the disposition of this proceeding, the same to become final when it becomes the order of the Commission; and that said order therefore should be, and hereby is entered as follows:

S. FARBER & SONS 601 598 Order ORDER It i8 ordered That respondents Nathan Farber, Jack Farber Samuel Farber, and :Max Farber, as individuals and as copartners trading as S. Farber and Sons, or under any other name, and respondents' representatives, agents, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the sale, or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce, of fur, as "commerce" and fur" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

(1) Failing to invoice furs to show in a clear and conspicuons lnanner:

(a) the name or names of the animal or animals producing the fur as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide and as permitted under the Rules and Regulations.

(b) the name of the country of origin of imported furs. (2) Using terms descriptive of the breed, species, strain, or coloring of an animal which connotes a false geographical origin of t.he animal.

ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLI.AXCE It i8 ordered That the 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 ll1anner and form in which they have complied with the order to cea.e and desist (as required by said declaratory decision and order of January 16, 1955J. , .

602 FEDERAL TRADE COML\USSIOX DECISIOXS Complaint Gl F. '1'. C.