The Bailey Company

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

Ix roe Marrer oF THE BAILEY COMPANY CONSENT ORDER, ETC.. IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 7465. Complaint, Apr. 1, 1959—Decision, Aug. 11, 1959 Consent order requiring a furrier in Cleveland, Ohio, to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to comply with labeling and invoicing requirements: and by advertising which failed to disclose the names of animals producing certain furs or that some fur products contained artificially colored or cheap or waste fur, and failed to use the terms “Persian Lamb,” “Dyed Mouton processed Lamb,” and “Dyed Broadtail processed Lamb” where required.

Mr. Kent Nratz for the Commission.

Mr. Samuel G. Wellman, of Cleveland, Ohio, for respondent. Initia, Decision By Evererr F. Haycrarr. Hearryg Examiner Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, the Federal Trade Commission on April 1, 1959, issued and subsequently served its complaint in this proceeding against. the above-named respondent.

On June 5, 1959. there was submitted to the undersigned hearing examiner an agreement between respondent and counsel supporting the complaint. providing for the entry of a consent order. Under the foregoing agreement, the respondent admits the juriscictional facts alleged in the complaint. The parties agree, among other things. that the cease and desist order there set forth may be entered without further notice and have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing and the document includes a waiver hy the respondent of all rights to challenge or contest the validity THE BAILEY CO. 159 158 Order of the order issuing in accordance therewith. The agreement further recites that it is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondent that it has violated the law as alleged in the compaint.

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 having considered the agreement and proposed order, and being of the opinion that they provide an appropriate basis for settlement and disposition of this proceeding, the agreement is hereby accepted, and it is ordered that said agreement shall not become a part of the official record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission. The following jurisdictional findings are made and the following order issuect. 1. Respondent The Bailey Company is a corporation existing and doings business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Ohio, with its office and principal place of business located at Ontario Street and Prospect Avenue, in the City of Cleveland, State of Ohio. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered. That The Bailey Company. a corporation, and its oflicers, 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 fur products, or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation, or distribution of fur products which are 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 :

1. Misbranding fur products by:

A. Failing to affix labels to fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the sub-sections of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

B. Failing to affix labels to fur products showing the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

C. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products: Order 56 F.T.C.

(1) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, mingled with non-required information ; (2) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in handwriting.

D. Failing to set forth all the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Reewations promulgated thereunder on one side of labels. E. Failing to set forth on labels the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the required sequence. F. Affixing to fur products labels that do not comply with the minimum size requirements of one and three-quarter inches by two and three-quarter inches.

2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Failing to furnish to purchasers of fur products an invoice showing all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the sub-sections of Section 5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

B. Failing to set forth the term “Dved Mouton processed Lamb” in the manner required.

3. 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:

«A. Fails to disclose:

(1) 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;

(2) That the fur product contains or is composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur, when such is the fact; (8) That the fur product is composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies or waste fur, when such is the fact. B. Fails to set forth the term “Persian Lamb” in the manner required.

C. Fails to set. forth the term “Dyed Mouton processed Lamb” in the manner required.

D. Fails to set forth the term “Dyed Broadtail processed Lamb” in the manner required. , ROBINSON KNIFE CO. 161 158 Decision 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 11th day of August, 1959, become the decision of the Commission; and accordingly :

It is ordered, That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after a service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has comphed with the order to cease and desist.