Strode Furriers

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

In THe Marrer or STRODE FURRIERS ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 7650. Complaint, Nov. 8, 1959—Decision, Mfar. 10, 1960 Consent order requiring Louisville, Ky., furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by falsely identifying certain fur products with respect to the names of animals producing the fur therein; by affixing labels containing fictitious prices in excess of the usual retail prices; by failing to label with the term “Persian Lamb” where required; by invoicing which showed imported furs to be of domestic origin and failed to set forth the term ‘Dyed Mouton-processed Lamb” as required; by newspaper advertising which falsely represented percentage savings; by failing in other respects to comply with advertising, invoicing, and labeling requirements; and by failing to keep adequate records as a basis for pricing claims.

Mr. Charles Donelan for the Commission.

Mr. Morris B. Borowitz, of Louisville, Ky., for respondents. Init1au Decision spy Loren H. Laucuitn, Hearing Examiner The Federal Trade Commission (sometimes also hereinafter referred to as the Commission) on November 3, 1959, issued its complaint herein, charging the above-named respondents with having violated the provisions of both the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, together with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and the respondents were duly served with process.

On January 21, 1960, there was submitted to the undersigned hearing examiner of the Commission for his consideration and approval an “Agreement Containing Consent Order To Cease And Desist,” which had been entered into by and between respondents and the attorneys for both parties, under date of January 19, 1960, subject to the approval of the Bureau of Litigation of the Commission, which had subsequently duly approved the same. On due consideration of such agreement, the hearing examiner finds that said agreement, both in form and in content, is in acord with §3.25 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings, and that by said agreement the parties have specifically agreed to the following matters: 1, Respondent Strode Furriers is a corporation existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Ken- Decision 56 F.T.C.

tucky, with its office and principal place of business located at 311 Guthrie Street, in the City of Louisville, State of Kentucky. 2. Respondents admit all the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint and agree that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been duly made in accordance with such allegations.

3. This agreement disposes of all of this proceeding as to all parties.

4. Respondents waive:

(a) Any further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission ;

(b) The making of findings of fact or conclusions of law: and (c) All of the rights they may have to challenge ov contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with this agreement.

5. The record on which the initial decision and the decision of the Commission shall be based shall consist solely of the complaint and this agreement.

6. This agreement shal] not become a part of the official record unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission.

7. This agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint.

8. The following order to cease and desist. may be entered in this proceeding by the Commission without further notice to respondents. When so entered it shall have the same force and effect ag if entered after a full hearing. It may be altered, modified or set aside in the manner provided for other orders. The complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order. Upon due consideration of the complaint filed herein and the said “Agreement Containing Consent Order To Cease And Desist.” the latter is hereby approved, accepted and ordered filed, the same not to become a part of the record herein, however, unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission. The hearing examiner finds from the complaint and the said “Agreement Containing Consent Order To Cease And Desist” that the Commission has jurisdiction of the subject-matter of this proceeding and of each of the respondents herein; that the complaint states a legal cause for complaint under the Federal Trade Commission Act. and the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Commission under the latter Act, against. each of the respondents both generally and in each of STRODE FURRIERS ET AL. 1045 1043 Order the particulars alleged therein; that this proceeding is in the interest. of the public; that the following order as proposed in said agreement is appropriate for the just disposition of all of the issues in this proceeding as to all of the parties hereto; and that said order therefore should be, and hereby is, entered as follows: ORDER It is ordered, That Strode Furriers, a corporation, and its officers, and Irvin Seligman and Joseph Seligman, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising, offering for sale, 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 subsections of Section 4(2) of the Fur Produets Labeling Act;

B. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying any such product as to the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which such product was manufactured ; C. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying such products as to the regular prices thereof by any representation that the regular or usual prices of such fur products are any amounts in excess of the prices at which respondents have usually and customarily sold such products in the recent regular course of business;

D. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products: 1. Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form;

2. Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled with non-required information ; 3. Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting.

Order 56 F.T.C.

E. Failing to set forth the term “Persian Lamb” in the manner required ;

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;

G. Failing to set forth the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the required sequence; H. Failing to set forth separately on labels attached to fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to the fur comprising each section; J. Failing to set forth on labels affixed to fur products the item number or mark assigned to the fur product; 2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Failing to furnish to purchasers of fur products an invoice showing all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act; B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing or otherwise identifying any such product as to the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which such product was manufactured ; C. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by stating that the furs contained in such fur products are domestic furs when, in fact, such furs are imported;

D. Failing to set. forth the term ‘Dyed Mouton-processed Lamb” in the manner required ;

E. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to a fur product;

8. 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. Represents, directly or by implication, through percentage savings claims, that the regular or usual retail prices charged by respondents for fur products in the recent and regular course of business are reduced in direct proportion to the amount of savings stated when contrary to fact;

B. Represents directly or by implication that the regular or usual price of any fur product is any amount. which is in excess of the price at which respondents have usually and customarily sold such product in the recent. regular course of business: ANTONETTE PEARLS, INC., ET AL. 1047 1043 Decision C. Misrepresents in any manner the savings available to purchasers of respondents’ fur products.

4, Making claims and representations in advertisements respecting prices and values of fur products unless respondents maintain 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 initia] decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 10th day of March, 1960, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly :

It is ordered, That the above-named respondents shal]. 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.