Mary Louise Gordon Formerly doing business as Deluxe Fur Company

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

IN THE YIATTER OF MARY LOUISE GORDON FOH:\1ERLY DOING BUSINESS AS DELUXE FUR COMPANY, ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC.. IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VLOLATI01' OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIO D THE FUR PRODUCTS Labeling ACTS Docket 70.98. Complaint, Mar. lD58-Decision, Dec. 24, 1.958 Consent ordcr requiring furriers in Haz1cton, Pa., to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by tagging fur prod-ucts with excessive prices purporting to be the rcguJar retail selling prices; by newspaper and television advertising which failed to disclose the names of animals producing certain furs or that some furs were artificlalJy colored, represented furs falsely as from a business in liquidation, and used comparative prices and percentage savings claims, etc. , not based on adequate records; and by failing in other respects to C'omp1y with the labeling, invoicing, and advertising requirements of the Act. MT. John T. WlLlkeT for the Commission. l11arie J 01tise Gordon and George Gonlon, P1' O se. INITIAL DECISION BY EVERETT F. HAYCRAFT, HEARING EXAMI On March 27 , 1958, the Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against Marie Louise Gordon (erroneously referred to in the complaint as ?dary Louise Gordon), an inrlivioual formerly doing business as Deluxe Fur Company, and George Gordon, an individual formerly manager of the Deluxe Fur Company, hereinafter referred io as respondents, charging them with the use of unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce in violation of the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgat"d under the Fur Products Labeling Act. In lieu of submitting answer to said complaint, both of the respondents on October 20 , 1958, entered into an agreement for consent order with counsel supporting the complaint disposing of al1 the issues in this proceeding in accordance v,lith Section 3. 25 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Commission, which ag-reement has been duly approved by the Bureau of Litig-ation. By the terms of said agreement, the respondents admitted al1 the jurisdictional facts al1cged in the complaint and agreed that the record may be taken as if finding-s of jurisdictional facts had been duly made in accordance with such allegations. Respondents in the agreement expressly waived any further pro- Order 55 F.

cedural steps before the hearing- examiner and the Commission; the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law; and a1l of the rights they may have to challenge or contest thc validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with this agreement. It was further provided that said agreement, together with the complaint, shall constitute the entire record herein; that the agreement shall not become a part of the offcial record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission; that said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by thc respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint. The agreement also provided that the order to cease and desist issuerl in accordance with said agreement shall have the same force and etrect as if entered after a full hearing; that it may be altered, modified or set aside in the manner provided for other orders; and that the complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order. This proceeding having 110\\7 come on for final consideration by the hearing examiner on the complaint and the aforesaid agreement for consent order, and it appearing that said agreement provides for an appropriate disposition of this proceeding, the aforesaid agreement is hereby accepted and is ordered filed upon becoming part of the Commission s decision in accordance with Sections 3.21 anel 3. 25 of the Hules of Practice; and in consonance vvith the terms of said agreement, the hearing examiner makes the following jurisdictional findings and order: 1. Respondent :Marie Louise Gordon is an individual formerly doing business as Deluxe Fur Company, ,with Gilce and principal place of business located at 41 ?-orlh Wyoming- Street, Hazleton Pa.. Respondent George Gordon is an inclivi(lual formerly manager of the Deluxe Fur Company, with omee and principal place of business at the same address as 2VIarie Louise Gordon. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respon(lents hereinabove namer!. The complaint states a cause of action against said respondents under the Feeleral Trade Commission Ad and the Fur Products Labeling Act and this proceeding is in the interest of the public.

ORDER It ?:s onlcrcd That respondents IVlaric Louise Gordon (erroneously designate,j in the complaint as :\lary Louise Gordon), an individual formerly doing business as Deluxe Fur Company, and DELUXE FUR CO. ET AI. 933 931 Order George Gordon, an individual formerly manager of the Deluxe Fur Company, and doing business under any other trade name or names, and respondents' agents, representatives, and employees directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection advertising,with the introdudion into commerce or the sale, offering for saJe, transportation or distribut.ion of fur products in commerce, or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution of fur products which have been madf; in ,,,hole or in part of fur \\7hieh has been shipped and received in commerce, as "commerce fur " and "fur product" are defmed in the Fur Procluds Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and (lesist from:

A. Misbranding iur products by:

1. Representing on labels attached to fur products, or in any other manner, that certain amounts are the regular and usual excess of theprices of fur products ,,,hen such amounts arc in prices at which such products arc usually and customarily sold oy respondents in the n:cent regular course of their business. 2. Failing to affx labels to fur products showing: (a) The name or l1mTICS of the animal or animals producing the fur or furs contained in the fur product as set forth in the Fur .Products )-ame Guide and as prescribed by the Rl1Jes and Regulations;

(b) That the fur pruduct contains or is composed of used ful' 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 pa\vs, tails, bellies or waste fur, when such is the fact;

(e) The name, or other identification issucd and registered by the Commission, 01' one or more persons who manufactured such fur product for introduction into commerce, introduced it into for sale commerce, soJeI it in commerce, ::cl\"cr1is€cl or offered it in commen, or transported it in c;commerce; (1' The name of the country of origin of any imported furs used in the fur product;

(g) The item number or mark assignecl to a fur product. 8. Setting forth 0n labels attached to iur products: (a) Information required under Section LJ (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act ancl the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled with nonrequired information; (g) Order 55 F.

(b) Information required under Section ,j (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of 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 torth in the Fur Products Name Guide and as prescribed under the I,ules and Regulations;

(b) That the fur product contains or is composed of useel 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, bclJies 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 fors contained in the fur product;

The item number or mark assigned to a fur product. 2. Setting forth on invoices pertaining to fur products information required under Section 5 (b) (J) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Hules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

C. 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 indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale of fur products and which:

J. Fails to disdose:

(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 prescribe(l under the Hules and Regulations;

(b) That the fur pro duels contain 01' arc composed of b1cached dyed or otherwise artificia1Jy colored :fu, ,,\'hen such is ihe fact 2. Fails to set furth the information required under Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgat.ed thereunder in type of equal size and conspicuousness and in dose proximity with each other. 3. Represents, directly 01' by implication, that any such stock DELlIXE FlIR CO. ET AL. 935 931 Decision is from the stock of a business in a state of liquidation, contrary to the fact.

D. lVlaking claims and representations in advertisements respecting comparative prices, percentage savings claims or claims that prices arc reduced from regular or usual prices unless there are maintained by respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 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 24th day of December 1958, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly:

It 'is o?'de1' That respondents Marie Louise Gordon (erroneously designated in the complaint as :\iary Louise Gordon), an individual formerly doing business as Deluxe Fur Company, and George Gordon, an individual formerly manager of the Deluxe Fur Company, shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, fde 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. , \\ Complaint 55 F.