Maurice Ball

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

IN THE ~fA TTER OF ~IAURICE BALL TRADING AS ~IA_URICE BALL FURS ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COl\DIISSIOX AND THE FUR PIWDUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 6631. Complaint, Sept. 1956-Dccision, Oct. , 1957 Order requiring a Los Angeles furrier to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act in adwrtising find labeling which falsely identified the animals producing the fur in certain products ami carried fictitious prices; by failing to comply with the labeling anel invoicing requirements of the Act; by advertisements ill newspapers which failed to disclose that certaiil fur proclucts were Hrtifkial1y colored, and misrepresented the geographic origiu of certain furs, their values, and prices; and by failing to keep adequate records as a basis for such pricing claims. Jit. ilJichael J. rita-Ie and J1b' . Tlwm, as :1, Ziebadh for the Comll1ISSlOn.

Style I(a?lu~,/).s, of Be,-erly HiJJs, Calif., by Ji?' Right/Tel J. Ii mni-ns for respondent.

INITIAL DECISION BY EAHL tT. ROLli, I-IE_\RING EX.\l\IINER This proceeding is before the undersigned hearing examiner for final consideration upon the cOlnplaint, ans,ver thereto, testimony and other evidence, and proposed findings as to the facts and conclusions presented by counsel. The hearing examiner has given consideration to the proposed findings of fact. and conclusions submitted by both parties, and a11 findings of fact and conclusions Jaw proposed by the. parties respectively not hereinafter specifically found or cone1uded are. here,with rejected, and the hearing examiner having considered the record herein and being now fully ach'ise.d in the. premises makes the foHow. ing findings as to the. facts, conchlsions dra. n therefrom, and order:

1. Hesponclent Jlaurice Ban is an individual trading as ~rallriee Ban Furs with his place. of business located at 521 ,Vest. Seventh Street, Los Angeles 14 , Cah fornin. Respondent is a. retail furrier and has been engaged in the purchase and distribution of fur prodnets, including coats, jackets, stoles and related fur garments in the do\\-ntmTn Los Anl!"eles area for over i15 veal's. 2. S11bseql1ent to the efl'edive date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August, D , 1952, respondent has been engaged in the advertising and in the sale and distribution of fur products in interstate commerce. The evidence in this proceeding shmvs that. respondent obtained substantial quantities of ij' s fur products by means of pur- MAURICE BALL FURS 437' 436 Decision chases made outside the State of California and that such fur products were shipped to him at his place of business in California. The evidence also shows that these fur products were thereafter advertised in newspapers having an interstate circulation, and in at least four instances respondent sold and transported fur garments to purchasers located outside the State of California; Respondent also purchases mink pelts or furs from a source in Los Angeles California, for use in the manufacture, by him, of fur products. These pelts have their origin outside the State of California. The activities of the respondent in procuring fur products from sources outside the State of California., and thereafter advertising and offering for sale in ne,,' spa pens having an interstate circulation, and thereafter seDing, shipping, and delivering such fur products in commerce clearly brings its business activities within the concept of commerce" under the Fur Products Labeling Act. 3. In the course and conduct of his business, certain of the fur products hereinabove described ,"ere misbranded as follows: (a) Some of respondents fur products were falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise were falsely or deceptively identified with respect to the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which said fur products had been manufactured in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. (b) Some of respondenes fur products were not labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, or in the manner and form prescribed by the 11111es and Regula60ns promulgated thereunder.

(c) Some of respondents fill' products were. misbranded in that required information was mingled with non-required information on labels, and in some instances information on labels ,vas set forth in hand,,-writing in violation of the. Fur Products Labeling .Act. and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. (d) Respondent caused or partieipatec1 in the removal of hbels required under the Fur Products Labeling Act to be aflixec1 to fur products prior to the tjme such fur products were sold and deJiye.rec1 to the ultimate consumer in violation of Section 3 (c1) of the Ful' Products LabeJin~ Act and Rule 27 of the Rules and Re!!uJations promulgated thereunder.

(e) Respondent's fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that such invoices in some instances did not contain the name or names of the animals that produced the fur; did not. indicate. that t.he fur products contained or "-ere composed of blpnched dyed or other,ise artificially colored fur; did not show that the fur products were composed of paws, tails, benies or waste fur: or did not give the correct country of origin of such fur; as required , 438 FEDERAL TRADE COMM:ISSION DECISIONS Decision 54 F. T. C. under the provisions of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

(f) Respondent' s products in some instances were falsely and dec.eptively 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 required information was set forth in abbreviated fornl in violation of Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

(g) Respondent caused dissemination in commerce, as "commerce is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act of certain advertisements concerning his said fur products, by means of newspapers and by various other means which advertisements were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 (a) of said Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

(h) Respondent caused dissemination in commerce, as "commerce is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act of certain advertisements concerning his said fur proc1uets, which falsely and deceptively advertised said fur products, in that some of said advertisements: (1) Failed to disclose the name or names of the animal or animals producing the fur or furs contained in the fur products. (2) Failed to disclose that the fur products were bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

(3) Falsely represented the geographical origin of the animal or animals which produced the fur contained in said fur products. 4. In the course and conduct of his business respondent held fur sales from time to time. On such occasions respondent placed advertisements in various newspapers having interstate circulation including Los Angeles Examiner, Los Angeles Times, and Los Angeles IIerald and Express. In such advertisements respondent represented that he was holding store-wide sales, during which his fur products could be purchased at a substantial discount or saving off regular pnees.

shipment 5. There is testimony in this proceeding that "hen a fur products was received, respondent's clerk wrote on the manufacturer s ticket attached to the garment the cost of said article as shown by the invoice. After the cost. of the garment had been placed on the ticket, the garment ,,-as inspected by the respondent and two figures place-ed upon the manufacturer s tag designating the top or tickete,cl price and the sale price. This procedure was not denied by the respondent except that he testified that this was only sale to be ordone when garment was received to be included in a J.\IA URICE BALL FURS 439 436 Conclusion being held. The clerk then prepared a yellow tieket to be attached to the garment showing the fur and origin and the top or ticketed price in figures-and the cost price in code. In the event a sale was being conducted a sales ticket was also attached to the garment showing the sale price in figures. The manufacturer s tag was then removed and attachecl to the invoice. 6. ,Vhile the evidence as a whole indicates that respondent does in fact place both the top and lo\'\er figure on the manufacturer tag, even in non-sa,les periods, this is not material as the top or ticketed price was merely a bargaining price and did not represent the actual price at which the garment was required to be sold by any sales person. This is borne out by the testimony of the respondent:

Q. And don t several of your customers, or prospect.e customers, I should say, during your regular season periods offer to purchase the garments for less than is shown on the yellow tag? A. Quite a number of them do.

Q. And also on: those occasions where quite a number of them do, if you can make what you consider a fair profit, you sell it for less, don t you? A. We do. (Tr. 230) Even during a sale period respondents sales personnel are authorized, subject to approval of respondent or his store manager to sell a garment for less than the sales ticket price. 7. In pricing his garments the respondent did not use any systematic mark-up from costs, and in fact the prices fixed by respondent to be placed on the yellow ticket ha,d no systematic relation to cost and were not set up on a definite pattern of profit. 8. The representations contained in the advertisements issued by the respondent constitute a misrepresentation of prices in yiolatioll of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44(a) promulgated thereunder. Respondent's system of pricing was such that the representations in advertiseme,nts of the regular price were fictitious, and further the purported saving indicated by the a.dvertiseme.nts was in fact fictitious since the designated regular price, or respondent' ticketed price, included Federal tax, while the sales price did not include tax.

CONCLUSION as herein The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondent, found, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Aet and the Rules and R.egulations promulgated thereunder, and as such eonstitute unfair and deceptive ads and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Order 54 F. T. C.

ORDER It is ordered That respondent j\Iaurice Ball, an individual doing business as :l\faurice Ball Furs, or under any other name, and respondent' s representatives, agents, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the 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 sale, advertising, ofiering for sale, transportation, or distribution of any fur product which 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:

1. Falsely or deceptively labeling or othenvise identifying any such product as to the naine or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which such produc.t was manufactured. 2. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying any such product as to the regular price or value of such product when such price is not that at which such product is regularly sold by respondent.

3. Failing to affix labels 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 under the Rules and Regulations; b. That the fur product contains or is composed of used fur, when such is a fact;

c. That the fur product conta.ins or is composed of bleached, dyed or art.ificially colored fur, when such a fact; in substantial d. That the fur product is composed in whole or part of paws, tails, bellies, or ,,-aste fur, ,vhen such is a fact; e. The name, or other identification issued and registered by the Commission, of one or more persons who manufactured such fur product for introduction into commerce, introduced it into commerce, sold it in commerce.e, aclYertised or offered it for sale in commerce, or transported or distributed it in commerce.e; f. The name of the country of origin of any imported furs used in the fur product.

4. Setting forth on labels attached to fur produc.is: fl.. Non-required information mingled with required information; b. Required information in handwriting.

B. Removing or participating in the removal of labels required by the Fur Products Labeling Act to be affixed to fur products, prior to MA URICE BALL FURS 441 4~6 Order the time any fur product is sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer.

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

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 under the R,ules and Regulations; b. That the fur product contains or is composed of bleached, dyed or other.rwise artificially colored fur, when such is the fact; c. That the fur product is composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, or waste fur, when such is the fact; d. The name of the country of origin of any imported furs contained in the fur product.

2. Setting forth required information in abbreviated form. D. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement or notice "which is intended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirecOy, 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 producing the fur or furs contained in the fur products as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide and as prescribed by the R.ules and Regulations; b. That the fur products contain or are composed of bleached dyed, or otherwise a.artificially colored fur, when such is the fact. 2. Represents, directly or by implication: a. That the amount set forth on price tags attached to fur products represents the yalue or the usual price at which said fur prodacts had been customarily s01d by the respondent in the recent regu- Jar course of his said business, contrary to fact; b. That the country of origin of any imported fur or furs used in said fnr products sold by respondent is other or different than is the fact.;

c. That any such product is of higher grade, quality, or value than is the fact;

d. That. the regular or usual price of any fur product is any amount which is in excess of the price at which the respondent has usually and customarily sold such products in the recent, regular course of his business.

E. ~\Iaking use of comparative prices or percentage savings claims in a~lye.rtising unless such compared prices or claims are based upon the current market value of the fur product or upon a bona fide compared price at a designated time.

Decision 54 F. T. C. F. Making price claims and representations of the types referred to in Paragraphs D 2a D 2c, D 2d, and E, unless there is maintained by respondent full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims or representations are based. DECISION OF THE COl\Il\IISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE This matter having come on to be heard by the Commission upon its review of the hearing examiner s initial decision, filed August 2 1957; and The Commission having determined that said initial decision is adequate and appropriate in all respects to dispose of this proceed- Ing:

1 t is ordered That the aforesaid initial decision be, and it hereby , adopted as the decision of the Commission. It is further ordered That respondent, Maurice Ball, shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon him of this order, file with the Commission a report, in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he has complied with the order contained in said initial decision.

.. .

1\.;

C/(Jt' ~/ .....1'1 THE MATTER OF REYNOLDS ~1METALS CO~IPANY AND LIFETIME SALES, INC.

ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRA.DE COl\I1IIISSION ACT Docket 6650. COIJ11Jlai' , Oct. 195G-Decision, Oct. 8, 1957 Order dismissing-for the reason that. respondEmt sold a11 that part of its production herein concernet1 , along with trade-mark and good will-complaint cl1arging a manufacturer of stainless steel cooking utensils at its factory in LaGrange, Ill., with falsely representing benefits to health and nutrition obtainable from use of its utensils and recommended "waterless" cooking methods, and dangers inherent in use of competitive products. As to respondent sales company, the matter was disposed of on June 1, 1957 (53 P. ll0S), by a consent order.

1Ii?. 1I.lorton N e8?nith and 111 T. John Al athias for the Commission. 1111'. Gustav B. iila?'graf and Afr. TV. Tobin Lennon of Richn10nd Va. , and 1111' Fred R. Edney, of Louisville, Ky., for Reynolds :Metals Co.

INITIAL DECISION AS TO REYNOLDS l\1METALS COllIPANY ABNER E. LIPSCOMB, I-IEARING EXAMINER On October 12, 1056, the Commission issued its complaint in this proceeding, charging Respondents with the dissemination, in connection with advertising and selling their stainless steel cooking utensils, of false, misleading and disparaging representations, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. On April 26, 1057, the hearing examiner herein issued his initial decision accepting an agreement containing a consent cease-and-desist order disposing of this proceeding as to Respondent Lifetime Sales Inc., which, on l\1ay 31, 1957, was adopted by the Commission. 1()t::1; ...1_ ThPTP.n.ftp.l' An A"....."",i- 1K ... () 1/ 444 FEDEIlAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Decision 54 F. T. C.

The affidavit further states that Respondent's decision to withdraw from the business of manufacturing stainless steel cooking utensils was. made after the issuance of the complaint herein. The affidavit affirms that this Respondent does not now manufacture, sell or otherwise distribute cooking utensils except for replacement of utensils previously sold which prove to be defective or not as guaranteed, and that such replacement of utensils by the Respondent will be continued until September 10, 1D57. Thereafter, the 'Ve~t Bend Aluminum Company will assume the obligation of such replacements, and the H,respondent, Reynolds :Metals Company, will be completely and whony divorced from the manufacture, sale and distribution of cooking utensils.

The a.fIidavit further states that Respondent Reynolds :Metals Company has no intention of engaging in the manufacture, sale and distribution of cooking utensils in the future, and stipulates that if Hespondenfs motion for dismissal is granted, and it should resume the direct selling of utensils, this present action may at that time reopened by the Commission.

On August 22, 1957, counsel supporting the complaint submitted an ans,ye.r to Respondent' s motion, stating that, in his opinion, public interest has been adequately protected, and that., by virtue of the Bell H o'Lvellpolicy of the Commission as set forth in the matter of OO?npany, Docket No. 6720, I\respondent's motion to dismiss should be granted 'without prejudice.

After consideration of the entire record herein, the hearing examiner agrees with counsel supporting the complaint that Respondent:s motion should be so granted, since public interest herein has already been adequately protected by the action of Respondent Reynolds j\Ietals Company in selling its business, and that heretofore taken by the Commission with respect to Respondent. Lifetime Sales Inc.. ; and that this proceeding, insofar as it involves Respondent - - 1-1- "'\'A t-n 10 1'",-nnflllV. ShOllld be dismissed ,vithout prejudice. ADVANCE SPECTACLE COl\lPANY, INC. , ET AL. 445 Order