Roberts, Inc.

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

IN THE ~IA TTER OF ROBERTS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE CO:i\Il\IISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 6715. Complaint, Jail. 22, 19j" Dec' isi, , July 3, 195, Consent order requiring furriers in Oklahoma City, Okla., and trading also in Beyerly Hills, Calif. , to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by labeling fur products with fictitious prices and removing required labels; by in\'oicing falsely with respect to artificially colored furs ami tJJe name of the animal producing certain furs; by advertising which gave other than the producing animal names for certain furs, falsely represented prices as wholesale or less and as reduced, and "sales" as liquidating their entire stock; and by failing in other respects to conform to the requirements of the Act.

All'. George E. Stehunetz and Jlr. D((:ni~l J. 11IuTphy for the Commission.

1111'. Vista1' Ha10te and 1111' Sam:uel HaZote of Beverly Hills, Calif. pro se, and for Roberts, Inc.

INITIAL DECISION BY EARL J. KOLB, I-IEARING EXAMINER The complaint in this proceeding issued January 22, 1957, charged respondents Roberts, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, with its principal office.e located at 9555 ,Vilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California; Victor Halote and Samuell-Ialote, individually and as ofl1eers of said R,roberts, Inc., located at 9555 ,Yilshire Boulevard, Beverly flills, California; and Victor f1alote and Samuel Halote, individually and as copartners trading as IIalote Bros., located at 9555 vVilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, with the use of unfair and deceptive acts and practices in interstate commerce in violation the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

After the issuance of said complaint, the respondents J10berts Inc., and Victor I-1alote and Samuel Halote, individually and officers of Roberts, Inc. ; also individually and as copartners separately trading as 1-1alote Bros., entered into an agreement for consent order ,'with counsel in support of the complaint disposing of all the issues in this proceeding, which agreement "as duly approved by the Director and Acting Director, Bureau of Litigation. It was expressly provided in said agreement that the signing thereof is for settlement purposes only and does not c.onstitute an admission by Order 54 F.

respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint.

By the terms of said agreement, the said respondents admitted all the jurisdictional facts alleged in 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. By said agreement the respondents expressly ,,'waived any further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission; the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law; and all the rights they may have to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with the agreement. Respondents further agreed that the order to cease and desist issued in accordance with said agreement, shall have the same force and effect as if made after a full hearing. It was further provided that said agreement, together wi t h the complaint, shall constitute the entire record herein, that the complaint herein may be used in construing the terms of the order issued pursuant to said agreement, and that said order may be altered modified or set aside in the manner prescribed by the statute for orders of the Commission.

The hearing examiner has considered such agreement and the order therein contained, and, it appearing that. said agl'eenwnt and order provides for an appropriate disposition of this proce,eding1 the same is hereby accepted and is ordered filed upon becoming part of the Commission s decision in ac.cord::l11ce '\"ith Sec.tiolls 0.21 and :3. 25 the Rules of Prac.tice, and, in consonanc.e '\with the terms of said agreement, the hearing examiner finds that the Feclera 1 Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the. respondents named herein, and that this proceeding is in the interest of the public, and issues the follo'\,ing order: ORDER It is ordered That the respondents, Hoberts, Inc., a corporation and its oHicers, :::nd Vic.tor I-Ialote anrl S:1Inucl l-Ialote, inrlividualJy and as officers of said corporation; and the said Victor HaJote and Samuel I-Ialote, individually and as c.copartners separately trading under the firm name of I-Ialote Bros., or under any other name, and respondents' representatives, agents, and employees, directly 01' through any c.corporate or other device, in connec.lion with the introduction into commerce.e, or the sale, achertising1 or oflering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce of fur products, or in connection "ith the oflering for sale, sale advertising, transportation, or distribution of fur products '\"which ROBERTS, INC. , ET AL.

Order have been made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as "commerce fur" and " fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. :Misbranding fur products by:

1. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying any such product as to the regular price or value of such product when such price or value is not that at which such product is regularly sold by respondents.

2. Failing to affix labe.)s to fur products showing: a. The name or names of the animal or animals producing the fur or furs contained in the fur product as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide and as prescribed in the R,ules and Regulations; b. That the fur product contains or is composed of used fur when such is a fact;

of bleached c. That the fur product contains or is composed dyed, or artificially colored fur when such is a fact; d. That the fur product is composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, or waste fur when such is a fact; e. The name of the country of origin of any imported furs used in the fur product.

3. Setting forth on labels attached to fur products: a. The name or names of any animal or animals other than the name or names provided for in Paragraph A(2)(a) above. b. Require,d information in hanchn'iting.

B. Removing or participating in the removal of labels required by the Fur Products Labeling Ac.t to be affixed to fur products, prior to the time any fur product is sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer.

C. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: of fur products 1. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers showing:

H. The name or names of the animal or animals producing the fur or furs contained in the fur product as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide and as prescribed by the Rules and R,egulations; c.composed of used fur, when b. That. the fur product contains or is such is a fact;

c.composed of bleached, dyed c. That the fur product contains or is or artificially colored fur, when such is a fact; (1. That the fur product is cOlnposed in ,,-hole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, or waste fur, when such is a fact; of the person issuing such invoices; e. The name and address of origin of any imported furs con- f. The name of the country tained in the fur product;

, ,, Order 54 F.

g. The item number or mark pertaining to such products as required by Rule 40 of the regulations under the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Using on invoices the. name or names of any animal or animals other than the name or names provided for in Paragraph C(l) (a) above.

3. Setting forth required information in abbreviated form. 4. Using the term " ble.ndecF to describe any fur products '\"which are dyed or tip-dyed.

D. Fa.1sely or deceptively ach"ertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, public announc.el11ent or notice which.h intended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale of fur products, and which: 1. Fails to disclose:

a. The name or names of the animal or animals produc.ing the fur or furs contained in the fur products as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide and as prescribed under the Rules and R.egulations; b. That the fur products contain or are composed of bleached dyed, or otherwise artificially colored fur, ,\yhen such is ~L fact; c. That the fur product is composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, benies or ,\yaste fur hen such is a fact; d. The name. of the eollntry of origin of imported furs contained in fur products.

2. Contains the name or names of any animal or animals other than the name or names provided for in Paragraph D(l) (a) above. 3. Represents directly or by implication:

a. That fur products are ofiered at prices at or below wholesale prices "hen contrary to fact, or that the regular or usual price any fur produc.t is any amount in e~eess or the pric.e at "which the respondents have usually and customarily sold such products in of their business;the rec.ent regular course b. That any of such products represent a clearance or a liquidation of their stocks of fur products, contrary to fact; e. That any such products are for sale at reduced prices as a special clearance or liquidation of stocks of fur proc1uc.ts, contrary to fact.. E. Using percentage savings claims and c.comparative prices in advertising' un Ip~s such claims and prices are hasec1upon current market values, or unle:::s the designated time of a bona fide compared price IS given.

F. ~Iakil1g use or pricillP' claims or representations in advertising of the type referred to in Pal'ngJ'aph DUn (a) and E abo\" , unless respondents maintain full and adequate records disclosing the bets upon ,,"which such claims or repn' sentations. are in fact bas,ec1. ROBERTS, INC. , ET AL.

Decision DECISION OF THE COMIHISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 3rd day of July, 1957, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly: It is ordered That the respondents herein shah, 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 the order to cease and desist. Decision 54 F.