Pacific Coast Fur Company

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

IN THE J\:fA'ITER OF PACIFIC COAST FUR CO1t1P ANY ET .AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO TI-IE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COl\Il\IISSIO~ AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-35. Complaint, Nov. 30, 1961-Decision, Nov. 30 1961 Consent order requiring associated furriers in Los Angeles, Calif. , to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing, on invoices and labels to show the true animal name of the fur used in fur products and to disclose when fur was dyed; failing to show the country of origin of imported furs and when fur products contained flanks, and falsely representing mink as from the Aleutian Islands, on invoices; by newspaper advertising which failed to disclose the names of the fur-producing animals, represented prices as reduced without giving the time of compared higher prices, and falsely represented "$200 000 worth of precious furs" offered for sale; failing to keep adequate records for price and value claims; and failing in other respects to comply with labeling and invoicing requirement.

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 Pacific Coast Fur Company, a corporation, and Venus Furs, a corporation, and Ralph J. Nymer, and Moe Basner individually and as officers of the said corporations, and :Milton Corb individually and as general manager of the said corporations, hereinafter referred to a,s respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgatBcI 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:

PAHAGHAPH 1. Pacific Coast Fur Company and Venus Furs are corporations orga.nized, existing and doing business lmder and by virtue of the laws of the State of California with their office and principal place of business located at 706 South Hill Street, Los Angeles CaEfornia.

alph .J. Nymer and l'loe Basner are president and vice president respectively, of the said corporate respondents. :Milton Gorb is general manager of the said corporate respondents. These individuals including the general manager control, formulate, and c1irec.t the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondents. :

Complain t 50 F.'r. Their office and principal place of business is the same as that of the said corporate respondents.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the eilec.tive date of the Fur Products Labeling Act. on August 0, 1052 respondents acting in cooperation and conjunction with Lion Clothing Company, Inc., a corporation located in San Diego, California, Korrick' , Inc. , a corporation loca ted in Phoenix, Arizona, E. Gotsehalk &. Company, Inc. , a corporation located in Fresno, California, L. I-Tali. & Son Company, Inc. , a corporation located in San ~Tose, California, and Florence Richards, an individual trading as ~,Iagic Eye, a proprietorship located in Las Vegas, Nevada, hflve been and are now engaged in the intl'odnction into commerce and in the sale, advertising and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution, in commerce of fur products; and hate sold, advertised, ofiered for sale, transpol'tecland distributed fur products ",hic.h have been made in ,,-hole 01' in part of fur ,yhieh had been shipped and received in commerce ~IS: the tei'ms "commerce fur" and " fur product." are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

\1'.. 3. Certain of said fur products I'. erf~ misbranded in tlwt. they (,1'e not labeled as reqniredunde.r the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products La bel in.Q: Act and in the manner and form 1)1'escribed by the. H111es and nep' nlntions prom111g:atec1 thereunder. Amoll~' such misbranded fur lJl'oc111cts but not limited thel'ew were fur products ,,-ith labe,ls "which :failed: 1. To shol': the true animalnnme of the fur used in the fur product. 2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur products "'as dyed when such "as the fact.

\R. 4. Certain of said fur prochlcts "'ere. misbranded in vio1ntion of t,he Fur Products LabeEng Act in that they ',"ere not bbelec1 in aecordance ,,-ith the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunc1eT in the follm\ing respects:

(n) The term "blendecf' "-as used as part. of the information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the R.ules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe the pointillg~ blenching, dyeing or tip-dyeing of furs in violation of Rule 10(f) of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) Information requirec1l1J1fleT Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the l~ules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder as mingled with non-required information in violation of Rule 20 (a) of snic1 Hules and ReguIntions.

(c) Information required under' Section 4 (2) of the Fur Product.s Labe.ling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thel'e1111- , ,, PACIFIC COAST FUR CO. ET AL. 1227 1225 Complaint cler was not set forth in the required sequence in violation of R.nJe 30 of said R.ules and Regulations.

PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by respondents in that they "ere not invoiced as required by Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Among 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 fur contained in the fur products was dyed when such was the fact.

To show the country of origin of imported furs used in the fur product.

PAn. O. Certain of said fnr products "-ere falsely and deceptively invoiced in th;lt ~aiel in,'oices connoted a false geographic origin :Mink by representing t.hat such l\link was from the Aleutian Islands when such was not the fact in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Lab('-~ing Act and R,ule 7 of said R,ules and Regulations. Pi, n. 7, Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in viobtion of the Fur Proclucts La.beling Act in that they we.rB not i11':oieec1 in accol'Cbnce ,...-ith the Rules and Re.crnlntions-=0 prol11111ga teel t hereunder in the following respects: (a) Inform:l tion requi l'eclunder Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Prodnets L;1beling Act and the Rnles andlle.guJations promulgated thereunder "as f,et -forth in abbre,-ia.ted form in violation of R.ule tl of said R.ules and regulations.

(b) Invoices failed to 5ho";, that fur products \Were composed in whole or . in substantial part of flanh::s hen such ,,-as the fact, in violation of Trade 20 of said Rules and Regulations. . P.\R. 8. Certain of said fur products "ere falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that respondents cflused the. dissemination in commerce, as "commerce i8 defined in said Act, of certain newspaper achertisements, concerning sflic1 products, "hieh 'I"ere not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 (a) of saiel Act and the Hules and Hegnlations promulgated thereunder; and which achert..isements "ere intended to flic1 promote and assist, direeUy or indirectly in the sale and offering for sale of sflid fur products.

P .\R. 0. ..:\.among and included in the flc1vertisements as aforesaid but not limited thereto ere advertise.nlents of respondents "which appeared in issues of the Fresno Bee, a nmvspaper published in the Decision 59 F.

City of Fresno, State of California, The San Jose ~1ercury, a newspaper published in the City of San Jose, State of California, The San Diego Evening Tribune and the San Diego Union, newspapers published in the City of San Diego, State of California, Las Ve.gas Review Journal, a newspaper published in the City of Las Vegas, State of Nevada, and the Arizona Republic, a newspaper published in the City of Phoenix, State of Arizona, and all the aforesaid newspapers having a ,vide circulation in said States and various other States of the United States.

By means of said advertisements and others of similar import and meaning, not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and c1eceptjyely 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 Fur Products Name Guide in violation of Section 5 (a) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

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

(c) Represented the volume of merchandise offered for sale to b~ $200 000 worth of precious furs when in truth and in fact the merchandise to be offered for sale was worth substantially less than $200 000 in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 10. Hespondents 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 promnlgated 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 a.nd representations were based in violation of Hule 44 (e) of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 11. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein 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 PACIFIC COAST FUR CO. ET AL. 1229 1225 Order violation of the Federal Trade COlmnission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondents having been served with Eotice of said determination and with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreeme.nt 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 settlement purposes only n.nd 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 rules; and The. Commission, having considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. R.respondents Pacific Coast Fur Company and Venus Furs are corporahons organized, existing and doing business under and by ,virtue of the laws of the State of California with their office and principal place of business located at 706 South IIill Street, Los Angeles, California.

Respondents Ralph J. Nymer and :Moe Basner are president and vice president, respectively, of the said corporate respondents, and respondent :Milton Corb is general manager of the said corporate respondents. Their address is the same as that of the said corporate respondents.

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 Pacific Coast Fur Company, a corporation and Venus Furs, a corporation, and Ralph J. Nymer and :Moe Basner individually and as officers of the said corporations and ~1iJton Corb jndividually and as general manager of the said corporations, 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, tr::tnsportation, 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 , ,, Order 59 F.

III the Fur Products Labeling Act do fortlH'. ith cease and desist from:

1. J\Iisbrancling fur products by:

A. Failing to nfI1x labels to fur products sho-wing in iyords and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section -i: (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

B. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products: (1) The term "blended" as part of the information required under' Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the H.ules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to desc.ribe the pointing, bleaching, dyeing or bp-dyeing of furs.

(2) Information require.dllllc1er Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled with non-required information.

C. Failing to set forth the information required under Sectionil(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the R.ules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the required sequence. 2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Failing to furnish to purchasers or fur products an invoic.e 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. Setting forth on invoic.es a false geographic origin of the animal that produced the fur.

C. Setting forth information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Ac.t and the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

D. Failing to disclose that fur products are composed in ",hole or in substantial part of flanks hen such is the fact. 3. Falsely or deceptively aclyertising fur products through the use of any ftdvertisement, representation, public annonncenwnt or notice "which is intended to aid, promote 01' assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale, or oilering for sale of fur products: and which.h : . A. Fails to disclose the name or names of the animal or animal,1s producing the fur or furs contained in the fur product, as set forth in the Fur Produc.ts Name Guide and as prescribed under the Rules ftnc1 Regulations.

B. l-:-ses previous higher prices as comp:uatives ,,- ithont giving the time of such higher cornp:llec1 prices.

C. Represents~ c1directly 01' by implication, thflt the volume of 11181'elwI1dise offeTec1 for sale is higher than is t11e fact. 4. I\Inbng c1nin1s and repre~enbhoI1s of the 1~-pes covered by sub,. sections (a), (b), (c.), and ((1) of Rule ~b~l oJ the. Rules and Regula- LIFETIME , INC. , ET AL. 1231 1225 Complaint tions 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. I t is fur-ther o1Yle'J'ed 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 form in which they have complied with this order.