The Stern & Mann Co.

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

IN THE MATTER OF THE STERN & MANN CO.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLA'nON OF THE FEDERAL TRAE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 8108. Complaint, Aug. 30, 1960-Decision, Feb. 9, 1961 Consent order requiring furriers in Canton, Ohio, to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failng to set forth "Dyed Mouton processed Lamb" and similar terms as required in invoicing and advertising; by failng, in . advertising, to disclose the names of animals. producing certain furs or the country of origin of imported furs or that some products con. tailled artificially colored fur; and by failng in other respects to comply with invoicing and advertising requirements. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that The Stern & )fann Co., a corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violatcd the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and R.eglllations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling: Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. The Stern & Mann Co. is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Ohio with its offce and principltl place of business located at 301 Tuscarawas Street .West, Canton, Ohio. It does business under the name of Stern & Mann PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9 , 1952, respondent has been and is now engaged in the introduction into commerce and in the sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution, in comm rce of fur products, and has sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which had been shipped and received in commerce as the terms "commerce, "fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 3. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by respondent in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, and in the manner 156 FEDERAL TRADE C011IISSIQN DECISIO:.S Complaint 58 If.

and form prescribed by t.he Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance with the R.ules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) Information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in abbreviated form, in violation of Hule 4 of said H,uses and R.egulatiol1s.

(b) The term "Persian Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required where an election is made to llse that term instead of Lanlb in violation of Rule 8 of the said Rules and R.eglllations. (c) The term "Dyed :Jlouton processed Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required ,yhere an election is ulade to use that term instead of Dyed Lamb in violation of Rule 9 of said Rules and Regulations.

(d) The term "Dyed Broadtail processed Lamb" was not set forth in the mrl111er required where an election is made to use that term instead of Dyed Lamb in violation of Rule 10 of the said Rules and Regulations.

(e) Required ite111 numbers were not set forth on invoices in violat.ion of Ru Ie 40 of the said H.ules and Regulations. PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that responde,nt caused the dissemination in commerce, as "commerce," is defined in said Act, of certain newspa,per advertisements, concerning said products, ,which were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 (a) of the said Act and the Hules and Hegnlations promulgated thereunder; H,ncl which advertisements were intended to aid, promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of said fur products.

\R. 6. Among and included in the advertismnents as aforesaid but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondent which appeared in issues of The Canton R.epository, a newspaper published in the City of Canton, State of Ohio, and having a wide circulation in said State and various other States of the l nitcd States. By means of said advertisements and others of similar import and meaning, not specifically referred to herein, respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertisements: (a) Failed to disclose the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product as set forth in the THE S1' ERN & MA.'r CO. 157 155 Discussion Fur Products mne Guide, in violation of Section 5(a) (1) of the Fnr Products Labeling Act.

(b) Failed to disclose that fur products contained or were composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artifieally colored fur, when such was the fact, in violation of Section 5(a) (3) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

( c) Failed to disclose the name of the count.ry of origin of the imported furs contained in the fur products\ in violation of Section 5 (a) (6) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. (d) Contained information required under Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and R.egulations promulgated thereunder set forth in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule t of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) The term "Dyed Mouton processed Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of Dyed Lamb in violation of Rule 9 of the said Rules and H.eglllat.iolls.

PAn. 7. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent, as herein a11cgec1, arc in vjolation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

i1r. Oharles W. O' Oonnell supporting the complaint. Blnck, i1cou8key, Souers ATDaugh by 311'. Loren E. Souer8, Jr. of Canton, Ohio, for respondent.

INITIAL DECISION OF ,J QI-IX LEWIS, IIEARING EXAl\fIKER The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondent on August 30, 1960, charging it with having violated the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations issued thereunder, and the Fe.deral Trade Commission Act through the false and deceptive invoicing and advertising of certain fur products. After being served with saiel complaint, respondent appeared by counsel and the-reafter entered into an agreement, dated December 5 , 1960, containing a consent order to cease and desist purporting t.o dispose of all t.his proceeding as to all parties. Said agreement., which has been signed by respondent, by counsel for said respondent, and by counsel supporting the complaint, and approved by the Direct.or, Associate Director, and Acting Assistant Director of the Commission s Bureau of Litigation, has been submitted to the above-named he.aring examiner for his consideration, in accordance with Section 3.25 of the Commission s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings.

158 FEDERAL TRADE COMJfISSION DECISIONS Order 58 F.

Respondent, pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, has admitted all the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and agreed that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been duly made in accordance with such allegations. Said agreement further provides that respondent waives any further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission, the makings of findings of fact or conclusions of law and all of the rights it may have to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with such agreement. It has been agreed that the order to cease and desist issued in accordance with said agreement shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing and that the complaint may be used in construing the terms of said order. It has also been agreed that the record herein shall consist solely of the complaint and said agreement, and that said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent that it has violated the law as alleged in the complaint.

This proceeding having now come on for final consideration on the complaint and the aforesaid agreement containing consent order and it appearing that the order provided for in said agreement covers all of the allegations of the complaint and provides for an appropriate disposition of this proceeding as to all parties, said agreement is hereby accepted and is ordered filed upon this decision s becoming the decision of the Commission pursuant to Sections 3.21 and 3. of the Commission s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings and the hearing examiner, accordingly, makes the following jurisdictional findings and order:

1. Respondent The Stern & Mann Co. is a corporation existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Ohio, with its offce and principal place of business located at 301 Tuscarawas Street .West, in the City of Cant.on, State of Ohio. 2. The Federal Trade Connnission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent hereinabove named. The complaint states a cause of action against said respondent under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, and this proceeding is in the interest of the public. ORDER It is ordered That The Stern & "'!nn Co., a corporation, and its olle-ers, 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, offering for , THE STERN & MA CO. 159 155 Order sale, transportation, or distribution, in commerce, of fur products, or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transporl. tion, 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 fut product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: A. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish to purchasers of fur products an invoice showing all the information required to be disclosed by each of the sub-sections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Setting forth information required to be disclosed under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form. 3. Failing to set forth the term "Persian Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of lamb. 4. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Mouton processed Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of Dyed Lamb.

5. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail processed Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of Dyed Lamb.

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

B. 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: 1. Fails to disclose:

(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 bleached dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur, when such is the fact. (c) The name of the country of origin of any imported furs contained in a fur product.

2. Sets forth information required under Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

3. Fails to set forth the term "Dyed Mouton processed Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of Dyed Lamb.

160 FEDERAL Tnade CQ:YIMISSIOK DECISIQXS Complaint 38 F.

DECISION OF THE COl\DIISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COl\Il' LIANCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s R.uses of Practice the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall, on the 9th day of. February 1961 , become the decision of the Commission; and accordingly:

It is onlered That the respondent herein shall within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this onler, file with the Commission a report in \writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in