Raphael'S, Inc.

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

In rhe Matrer or RAPHAEL'S, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., JN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-52. Complaint, Dee. 21, 1961—Decision, Dec. 21, 1961 Consent order requiring a furrier in Mobile, Ala., to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to show on invoices the true animal name RAPHAEL'S, INC., ET AL. 1375 1374 Complaint of the fur used in fur products and the country of origin of imported furs, and failing to maintain adequate records disclosing the facts upon which advertised price and value claims were based. 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 Raphael’s, Inc., a corporation, and S. M. Bauer, individually and as an officer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated 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: Paracrapy 1. Raphael's, Inc. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Tennessee, with its office and principal place of business located at 30 North Royal Street, Mobile, Alabama.

S. M. Bauer is an officer of the said corporate respondent and controls, formulates and directs the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondents. His oflice and principal place of business is the same as that of the said corporate respondent. Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1962, respondents have been and are 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 commerce, of fur products; and have 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. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondents in that. they were not invoiced as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under such Act. 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 show the country of origin of the imported furs used in the fur product.

Par. 4. Respondents advertised fur products in the Mobile Press Register, a newspaper published in the city of Mobile, State of Ala- Decision 59 F.T.C.

bama, and having a wide circulation in the said State and in various other states of the United States.

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 Regulations.

Par. 5. 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 cleceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition im 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 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 agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set. forth in the complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement 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; 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. Respondent Raphael’s, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Tennessee, with its oflice and principal place of business located at 30 North Royal Street, Mobile, Alabama.

Respondent S. M. Bauer is an officer of said corporation and his address is the same as that of said corporation. HELBROS WATCH CO., INC., ET AL. 1377 1374 Syllabus 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 Jt is ordered, That Raphael’s, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and S. M. Bauer, 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 product” 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 invoices to purchasers of fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the. Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Making claims and representations 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 unless there are maintained by respondents full and adequate records disclosing the. facts upon which such claims and representations are based. It is further ordered, 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.