Lion Clothing Company, Inc.

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

IN THE 1\LATTER OF LION CLOTHING COJ\IP ANY, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER , ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COl\Il\:IISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 0-.'32. Cmnplaint, Nov, 30, 1961-Decision, Nov. 30, 1961 Consent order requiring a San Diego, Calif., furrier to cease ,violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing, on invocies, to show the true animal name of fur used in fur products, to disclose when fur was artificially colored, and to reveal the country of origin of imported furs; by advertising which represented prices as reduced \vithout gi,ing the time of the compared higher prices; and by failing to keep adequate records as a basis for such price and value claims.

CO:MPLAINT 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 Lion Clothing Company, Inc., a corporation and Louis F. Overgard, individually and as an officer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violat~d the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations 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. Respondent Lion Clothing Company, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California with its notice and principal plac.e of business located at Sixth and Broadway, San Diego, California.

Individual respondent Louis F. Overgard is president of the corpontie respondent and controls, directs and formulates the acts, practices and policies of the c.corporate respondent.. 1-lis office and principal plac.e of business is the same as that of the c.corporate respondnt.

\TI. 2. Sl1b.;;;equcnt to the efrective date of the Fur Products La-heling Act on A_ugnst 9 , 1952, respondents acting in cooperation and conjunction ,,"ith Pacific. Coast Fur Company, a c.orporation, and Venus Furs, a corporation, have been and are now an gaged in the introdnc.tion into commerce and in the sale, advertising, and oflering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution in commerce, of fur products; and have sold, advertised, ofrered for , , LION CLOTHING CO. , INC. , ET AL. 1213 1212 Complaint sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in pa.rt of fur which has 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 respondents in that they were not invoieed as required by Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the man. ner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated. An10ng such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto were invoices pertaining to such fur products which failed:

1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product.

2. To disclose that the fnr contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored when such was the fact..

3. To show the count.I17 of origin of the imported furs used in the fur product.

P AU. 4. Certain of said fl1r products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoieed in aecordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that such invoices failed to show that the fur products \were composed in whole or in substantial part of flanks when such was the fact, in violation of R,ule 20 of said R,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 respondents caused the dissemination in commerce, as "commerce is defined in said Act, of certain newspaper advertisements, concerning said products, which were not in accordanee with the provisions of Section 5 (a) of the said Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder; and which advertisements were intended to aid promote and assist, directly or indirectly in the sale and . ofl' ering for sale of said fur products. PAR. 6. Among and included in the advertisements as aforesaid hut not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the San Diego Evening Tribune and the San Diego Union, newspapers published in the City of San Diego, State of California, and having a wide circulation in said State and various other States of the r ni ted States.

By means of snirl advertjsements and others of similar import and meaning, not speeifienlly . re.ferred to herein, respondents Decision 59 F.

falsely and deceptively, advertised fur products in that said advertisements :

(a) Represented prices of fur products as having been reduced from previous higher prices without giving the time of such compared previous higher prices in violation of Rule 44 (b) of said R.ules and R.egulr.tions.

PAR. 7. Respondents in advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid made claims and representations respecting prices and values of fur products. Said representations were of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act. Respondents in making such claims and representations failed to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations were based in violation of Rule 44 ( e) of said Rules and Rugulations.

. PAR. 8. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as here~ in alleged, are in violation 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.

DECISION AND ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondents having been served with notice of ~~aid determination and with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together with a proposed from of order; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlemmH. purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as set forth in the complaint and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission s rules;andthe Commission, having considered the agreement, hereby aceepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement, makes the follo\ying jurisdictional. findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Lion Clothing Comt)any, Inc., is a corporation org~nized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California with its office and principal i)lace of business located ~t Sixth and Broadway, San Diego, California. LION CLOTHING CO. , INC. , ET AL. .1215 1212 Order R.respondent Louis F. Overgard is president of said corporation and his address is the same as that of said corporation. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered That Lion Clothing Company, Inc., a corporation and Louis F. Overgard, individually and as an officer 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, 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 prodtlcts are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by A. Failing to furnish to purchasers of fur products invoices 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. Failing to disclose that fur products are composed in whole or in substantial part of flanks, when such is the fact. 2. 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 fllr products, and which: Uses previous higher prices as comparatives without giving the time of such higher compared prices.

3. l\taking claims and representations Qf the types covered by subsections (a), (b) ~ (c) n.nd ( d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act unless there are maintained by respondents full and adequate records . disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based. J t is further o'lYlered That the respondents herein shall, 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 formin which they ha;ve eomplied with this order. Complaint 59 F.