Smith Fur Company

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

IN THE MATTER OF SMITH FUR COMPANY CONSENT ORDER, ETC., TK RF:GARD TO TlIF ALLF.GF.D VIOLATIOK OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LAB Llng ACTS Docket 72().'. C01npla.int, J-nly g3 1958-- f)ecision lIlaY. , 1959 Consent ordcr requiring furriers in Chicago to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to label and invoice fur products as " secondhand" when that was the case, and failing in other respects to comply \'with the labeling and invoicing requirements; by advertising which represented prices of fur products falsely to be "Wholesale Coot or Below" and as 60?' below retail" ; and by failing to maintain adequate records on which such pricing claims were based.

r. William A. Smne'rs for the Commission. Mr. Norman II. krans of Chicago, Ill., for respondents. INITIAL DECISION BY WALTER R . JOHNSON , HEARING EXAMI:\ER In the complaint dated July 23 , 1958 , the respondents are charged with violating the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Laheling Act and the Rules and Regulations made pursuant thereto.

On January 8, 1959, the respondents and their attorney entered into an agreement with counsel in support of the complaint for a consent order.

The hearing examiner finds that the content of the agreement meets all of the requirements of Section 3.25 (b) of the Rules of the Commission.

The hearing examiner being of the opinion that the agrcement and the proposed order provide an appropriate basis for disposition of this proceeding as to all of the parties, the agreement is hereby accepted and it is ordered that the agreement shall not become a part of the omeial record of the proceeding unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission. The following jurisdictional findings are made and the following order issued:

1. Respondents Mac Smith and Libbie Smith are individuals and copartners trading as Smith Fur Company, with offces and principal place of business located at 33:, West Adams Strect Chicago, Ill.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the sub- SMITH FUR COMPANY 1575 1574 Order ject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered That respondent.s Mac Smith and Libbie Smith individually and as copartners, trading as Smith Fur Company, or under any other name, and respondents ' representatives agents and employees, direct.ly 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-, offering for sale, transportation, or distribution of any fur product which is made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as "commerce fur" and "fur product" arc defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist. from:

1. Misbranding fur producis by:

A. Failing to affx labels to fur products showing: (1) The name or names of the animal or animals producing lhe fur or furs contained in the fur product as set fort.h in t.he Fur Products Name Guide and as prescribed under the Rules and Regulations;

(2) That. the fur product contains or is composed of secondhand fur, when such is the fact;

(:3) That the fur product contains or is composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur when such is the fact; (4) That. t.he fur product is composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, or wast.e fur, when such is the fact;

(5) The meme, or other identification issued and regist.ered by the Commission, of one 01' more persons who manufactured such fur product for introduction into commerce, introduced it into commerce, sold it in commerce, advertised or offered it for sale in commerce, or transported or distributed it in commerce; (6) The name of the country of origin of any imported furs contained in a fur product.

B. Failing to disclose that fur products contain or are composed of "Secondhand fur " when such is the fact. C. Setting forth on labels affxed to fur product.s: (1) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Prod- Decision 55 F.

uets Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations thereunder, mingled with nonrequired information;

(2) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting.

2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by; A. Failing to furnish invuices to purchasers of fur products showing:

(1) 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 :-ame Guide and as prescribed under the Hules and Regulations;

(2) That the fur product contains or is composed of secondhand fur, when such is the fact;

(3) That the fur product contains or is composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur, when such is the fact; (4) 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) The name and address of the person issuing such invoice; (6) The name of the country of origin of any imported furs contained in a fur product;

(7) The item number or mark assigned to a fur product. D. Failing to disclose that fur products contain or are composed of "secondhand fur " when such is the fact. 3. Falsely or deccptively 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:

A. Represents, directly or by implication, that the prices of fur products arc at "Wholesale Cost or Below," when such is not the fact.

4. Making price claims and representations respecting percentage savings unless there is 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 SMITH FUR COMPA'1Y 1577 1574 Decision 27th day of March 1959, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly:

It is ordered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, fie 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.