Robot Time, Inc., et al.

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

eompIiecl i1ith the order contained in said initial dceision. 1 X THE J\LUTEH OF R0I30T TIME, IKC., ET AL.

ORDER, l':TC., JX REG. \HD TO THE ALLEGED VIOL -\TION OF THE FEDEIL\L TRADE CO)BfISSION ACT Docket 8403. Compla.i.nt, Jla.U 19G1 Dccision, Jan. 5, 1962 Order requiring Xew York City assemblers of so-called "Robot watches " null imported movements with cases, dials, bracelets. and other parts IJlrchasc(i from other manufacturers, to cease using fictitious prices ill connection "itll tbe sale of their watcIles to wholesalers, retailers, etc. , tbrongh such prflctices as affxing to each watch a ticl:et or metallic tag printed with an excessh-e amount, represented tIlus as the usual retail price. COl\IPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federa,l Trade Commission Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by saiel Act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe thrlt Robot Time, Inc. a corporation, and Louis Silverman and Pearl Silverman, incli, idulllly and as oiIcel's of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as responc1 ents, have violated the provisions of sflicl Act, and it a,ppef'cring to the Commission that fL proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follow\s:

-'H.\GIL\rn 1. Respondent Robot Time, Inc., is a corporation organized, exist.ing and doing business under and by virt.ue, of the Jaws of the State of ew York, with its offce and principal place of business located nt ;)80 5th A venue, ?'e,y York. :. . 1'. Respondents Louis Sihel'man nncl Pearl SilvPTElll1 are, oDieers of tlw corporate respon(lent. They forrnuhte, direct. find control the ROBOT 'rime, IKC. , ET AL.

Complaint acts ancl practices of the corporate respondent, ineJuc1ing the acts and practices hereinafter set forth. Their address is the same as that. of the corporate respondent.

.\R. 2. Respondents are now, and for some time last past hayc been engaged in the sale and distribution of wlLtches to retailers for resale to the public.

'lH. ::L In the course and conduct of their business respondents now cause: and for some time last past hayc caused, their said products ,vhen sold to be shipped from their place, of business in the State of Kew York to purchasers thereof located in various other states of the 1Jnited States and in the District of Columbia, and maintain, and at all times mentioned herein havcmaintainec1, a substantial course of trade in said products in commerce, as "commerce:' is defined in the Federa.l Trade Commission Act.

PAIL 4. Hespondents, for t.he purpose of inducing the purchase of their products, have engaged in the practice of using fictitious prices in connection therewith by attaching or causing to be attached tickets to their said watches upon which certain amounts arc printed, thereby representing, directly or by implication, that said amounts are the usual and customary retail prices of said watches in the trade areas where the representa60n is made. In truth and in fact, the sald amounts are fictitious ftnd in excess of the llsual and customary retail prices or sa.id wf' t.ches in the trade areas ,,-here t.he representnJion is made.

PAR. 5. By the aforesaid acts a.ncl practices respondents furnish means a,ncl instrumentalities whereby dealers may mislead the public as t.o the 11usual and regular retall prices or their \vatches. PAR. 6. In the conduct or their business, and at a.ll times mentioned herein: respondents have been in substantial competition in commerce with corporations, firms, and individuals in the sale or watches of the same general kind and nature as that sold by respondents PAR. 7. The use by respondents of the aforesaid false, misleading and deceptive statements, representations and practices has had, and no\v has, the capacity and tendency to rnisJea,d members or the purchasing public into the erroneous and Inista.lren belier that said statements and representations were and are true ancl into the purchase of substantial quantity.ies of respondents' products by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief. As a consequence there.of, substantial trade in commerce has been and is being unfairly divertecl to respondents from their compet.itors ancl substanthl injury has t.hereby been and is being done to competition in commerce. ..

FEDERAL TRADE C01v1MISSIOl\ DECISIO Initial Decision GO F.

PAR. S. The G-fOl'BSaid acts and practices of responde,Hts as herein alleged, "ere, and arCj all to the prejudice and injury to the public and of respollde.nts competitors and constituted, anc1now constitute, UllfiLiI' and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce.e within the intent and meaning of the F' edcral Trade Commission \.ct.

Jli' lho' Y E. Jiiddleton. JI sllpporting the complaint. .111 . Louis Siz,vtt' J)W11 of Kc,\" York, N. lJ'O se. - IXlTL\L DECISION BY 'YILLL\ili K. JAClI:SOX, HEATISG EXA:\liner This proceeding "as brought under Section 5 of the Federal Trade COJrllnission Act by the issuance of a complaint on lay 19 , 1961 charging the, above-named corporate respondent and the individual respondents, its offcers, ,with unfair acts and practices in the pricing of their ,yatches ,,'which are sold in interstate comlncrce. Pa, ragraphs 4: and 5 of the cOlnplaint charge specifiu1.1y t.hat respondents pretie,ket their wntches '.with fictitious prices which are in excess of the usual and customary retail prices of saiel watches in the trade areas ,yhere the representation is made, thereby furnishing the me!1l1S and instrumclltalities by which the purchasing public may be misled as to the regular llncluswd retail prices of respondents' watches. IIearing"s '"ere held in this matter on September 6 and 7 , 1961, at Kew York, Xe,y York, at ,which oral testimony and documentary evidence '''(:1'(; recei, ed in support of and in opposition to the a11egntions sel forth in the complaint. Proposed fmc1ings of fact, brief and order have been submitted by counsel in support of the complaint and a brief in opposition thereto by Louis Sih ennfln on behalf of the corporate and indi\'idual respondents. Consideration has been given to the proposed finding,,, of fact ancl briefs submitted by the parties, find an proposed i-ndings of :fact not hereinafter spccifical1y :found arc rejected,d. The hearing examiner having considered the entire record herein Inakes the following findings as to the facts conclusions dra \Hl therefrom and order.

FlSDIXGS OF FACT 1. Respondent, Hooot Time Inc., is a. corporation organized and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York with its offce and principal place of business located at 580 Fifth Avenue ew York 2. The individual respondent, Louis Silverman, is an offcer of the corpora.te rp.spondent ilnd in said c Lpacity formuJntes, directs and COll- ;

ROBOT TIME , INC. , ET AL.

Initial Decision trols the policies, acts and practices oJ the corporate respondent. His address is the same as the corporate respondent. 3. The individllalrcsponclent, Pe,arl Silverman, is an offcer in name only and does not formulate, direct or control the policies: acts and practices of the eorpornte respancbnt.

4. Respondents are now, and for some t.ime last past hate been enga.ged in the asscmbly, sale and distribution of ,yatches, knmYl1 as Hobot watches ;' to jobbers, wh01esalcrs and to various types of retail stores for resale to the public.

5. In the regular and usual c.course and conduct of their business respondents cause, and for some 6me last past have caused, their Robot watches '; ",hen sold, to be shipped from their place of business in the Stat.e of New York 1-0 purchasers thereof located in various other States of the United States, and respondents maintain and at an times mentioned herein l11"1"e mftintainecl, a substantial course of trade in said watches in cOlnmcrce: as "commerce;: is defined 1n the Federal Trade Commission J\.ct.

6. Hespondents, in the course and conduct of their business, arc in substantial cOlnpetition in comnWl''e ,,,jth other corporations, firms and individuals likewise engaged in the sale and distribution of the same general kind and nature of watches as sold by respondent. 7. Hespondents' operation consists of buying imported movements in the open market in Nmv York as well as ilnporting moyements directly, purchasing cases and dia.1s from other manufacturers, assembling the various component parts, attaching a bra.ce.1et and placing the assembled ,vatch in a box. At the time respondents assemble their watches and package them for sale, they affx to each watch a ticket or metallic tag. On the face of each metanic tag or ticket is an amount in figures purporting to represent the regular flnd customnl'Y retail price of the particular ,,' atch. These pre-tickets are on each "Robot vi'atch:: ,,'hen it is shipped from respondents' place of business to jobbers, ,vholesalers and the various types of retail establishments with whom they do business, and it is still attached to the ,yatches when they are sold to the ultimate consumer or user. 8. \ieyer Gillespie, one or respondents: cllstomers, testified that he ever sens respondents Habot watches;' to l'etftil cllstomers at the Robot ticketed prices. For example, one customer of Gillespie testified she purcha.sed a Robot ,vatch lodel #617X, from Gillespie in June of 1959 for $15.00 which bore a Hobot ticket of $40. ;5. Illustrative of other retail sales rnude by Gillespie to ultimate purchasers of Iodel #61iX " Rahat watches" were byo at 814.00 and 818. , which also had been preticketed by Hohat at $49.;5. FEDERAL TRADE CQM:\lission DECISIONS Initial Decision GO F.

Blanche Ring, employed by another 011e of respondents' customers testified that they also novel' sold " Robot watches" to retail customers at the Robot preticketed prices. For example, one Robot watch, preticketed by respondents at $71.50, was sold by this witness for $24. plus tax, admittedly a slight reduction from her tagged price of $27. 50. 9. On the basis of the entire record the examiner finds that respondents hate engaged in the practice of using fictitious prices in connection with the sale of their watches by attaching or c LUsing to be at.taclled thereto metallic tags or tickets upon which certain amounts are imprinted, thereby representing directly or by implication that said amounts are the usual and customary ret.ail prices of said wat.ches in the trade areas where the representations are made; ,,,whereas, in fact, the said amounts are fictitious and in excess of the usual and regular retail prices of said watches in the trade areas where the representations are made.

10. By pre-ticketing their watches, as afore.c;aid, respondents furnish the means and instrumentalities by which ot.hers may mislead the purchasing public as to the usna.! and regular prices of respondents' watches.

11. The use by respondents of the aforesaid practice of pre-ticketing has had, and now has, the capacity and tendency to misle,ad and deceive members of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that the said pre-ticketed prices are the usual and regular retail prices of respondents' water-hes. Respondents ' false, misleading and deceptive pre-ticketing of their watches induces the public to purchase substantial quantities of respondents' watches by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief as to their true prices. As a consequence thereof, substant.ial trade in commerce has been and is being unfairly diverted to respondents from t.their compet.itors, and substantial injury has been and is being done to competition in COIllmeree..

12. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents in pre-ticketing their "atches "ere, and are, aJl to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents' competitors, and constituted, and now constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

CONCL "CSIOXS OF LAW 1. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of and over respondents and the subject matter of this proceeding. 'ROBOT TIME INC. , ET AL.

Initial Decision 2. The complaint filed herein states a cause of action, and this proceeding is in the public interest.

3. Counsel supporting the complaint has proved by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence that respondents, by pre-ticketing their watches with fictitious prices which are not the usual and regular retail prices of said watches in the trade areas where the representations are made., put into the hands of retailers who buy the watches from them, the means whereby such persons may mislead and deceive members of the purchasing public into the erroneOllS belief that the retail" price or pre-ticketed price is the usual and regular retail price in the trndc area where the representations are made. Respondents acts and practices in pre-ticketing their watches are unfair and deceptive and constitute violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Clinton TV atch Company, et al v. F. 1'. 291 F. 2d 838 (CA 7, June 1961); Niresk Industries, Inc. v. 278 F. 2d 337 (CA 7, )larch 1960), cert. denied, 364 U. S. 883; Rudin cO Roth, et al. , 53 C. 207 (1956), and The Orloff Co. , Inc. , et ai 52 F. C. 709 (lD;)6) .

4. The fnet that others in the watch industry may be engaged in activHies which are substantially similar does not justify respondents adopting a similar method or practice. C/. v. A. E'. Staley JJffq. Co., et ai 324 LT. S. 746 (1245) anel International Art Co. , et al. C. 10D F. 2d 393, cert. denied 310 U. S. 632. 5. A pre-ticket, showing a fictitious price, has a tendency to mislead a purchaser into believing that the reduced price which he is securing from one of respondents' various retailers is a saving from the prevailing price for the watch else\vhere in the same trade area, and it is inlll1aterial that in other trade areas the pre-ticketed price may be charged. The Baltinw'i'e L'u,q,qage Com~pany, et cd. Docket n. 7683 March 15 , 1961.

6. "Retail sales" are. direct sales to the ultimate consumer or user. Similarly "retail prices" are the prices paid by the ultimate purchaser or user. A " retail sale" is nonetheless a retail sale because the ultimate consumer purchases the article in a "discount house" or " cut.-rate store. White ilotor Co. v. Litteton 124 F. 2d 92 (CA 5); G'W88 111ontague 51 F. Supp. 61; G",-loc7c Pae1cing Co. Glander 80 N. 2d 718; Stolze Lwnber Co. v. Stratton 54 K.E. 2d 554, 386 I1. 334; Palmer v. Pei-kin8 205 P. 2d 785; 119 Colo. 533 , and Scott v. ggett 226 S.W. 2d183.

ORDER It is ordered That Robot Time, Inc., a corponltion, Louis Silverman, individually and as an offcer of sa.id corporation, and Pearl FEDERAL TRADE CQ:\L\1TSSION DECISIOXS Syllabus GO F.

Silverman, as an offcer of said corporation, and respondents' agents representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection \'"irh the oHering for sale, sale, or clistl'ibution of watches, or any other product in C011merce, as "commerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forth,with cease and desist fronl:

1. Representing by pre-ticketing or in any other manner, that any ltllount is the usual and regular retail price of any product when such amount is in excess of the price at which such product is usually and regularly sold at retail in the Trade area or areas 'where the re.presentation is made; and 2. Furnishing a,ny 111cans or instrumentality to others by and through which they may misrepresent the usual and regular retail price of any of respondents' products; and It i8 fU1' ther ordered That the eomphint herein be, and the same hereby is, dismissed as respect.s respondent IJearl Silverman, in her individual capacity, but not to the extent that she may be subject to this order as a.n officer or agent of the corporate respondent. DECISION m THE C02\DIISSlON XND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF CO:\IPLIA:NCE Pursuant to Section 4. 19 of the Commission s Hules of Practice the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall on the 5th day of J auuary 1862, become the decision of the Cmnmission; and accordingly:

It is O1'dered That the respondents herein shad, "within sixty (GO) days after service upon them of this order, file ,with the COllmi sion a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form jn which they havo complied with the order to cease and desist. Ix THE l\L\.TTER L. HART AND SON CO., IKC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDI , ETC. , IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED Vlcd.\TJON OF TI-IE FED- ERAL TRADE CQ::DIISSIQN AXD THE Fur I'HODlJCTS LAllELIXG \.CTS Dooket C-56. Complaint, Jan. 19U2-JJecision, Jan. , 1962 Consent order requiring furriers in San Jose, CaUL, t.o cease ,violating the Fur Products LabeUng Act by failing to show on labels and invoices the true animal name of the fur used in fur products: failng to disclose on illyoices the country of origin of furs used, ,yhen the fur was artifidaJly colored, and when fur products were composed wholly or substantiaily of fianl L. HART k\m SON CO, ) INC. , ET AL.

Complaint failng to comply in other respects \'with labeling and invoicing require ments; by advertising in nc\vspapers which represented prices of fur products as reduced from previous higher prices without gi'ling the time of such cOllpared higher prices: and failng to maintain adequate records disdosing the facts upon which such pricing claims were based. C03IPLAIXT Pursuant to the provisions of the Feclera.l Tnlcle Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and by virtue of the authority vcste.cl in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, 11aving rea,son to believe that. L. Hart and Son Co., Inc., 11 corporation, and Alexander J. Hart, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts find the Rules and Regulations promulga1.ed under the Fur Products Labeling Act, and it appea.ring to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof "ould be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: \R/:I.GR.\PH 1. Respondent L. IIa1't and Son Co. , Inc., is a corporat.ion organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, with its office and principal.l plaCB of busine,s located at S,wta Clara and Market Streets, San Jose Calif.

Individual respondent Alexander .J. Hart, Jr., is president of the said corporate respondent and controls, directs and formulates the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent. I-lis offce 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 Augnst 9, 1952, respondents acting in cooperation and conjunction ,, ith Pacific Coast. F'ul' Compa-ny, a corporation, and Venus Flll's, a corporation, have been (l,nd are now engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in the sale, advertising, and oiJering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation, and distribution, in commerce, of fur products; a,nd ha,ve 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 afur product" are. defined in the Fnr Products Labeling Act.

PAH. :1. Certftin of said fur products were misbranded in that they we,re not labeled as reql1ireclunder the provisions of Section 4(2) of t.he Fur Products Labeling- .:-\.ct and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and HegulatioJls promulgated there linden'. , , \\ FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIOXS Complaint 60 P.

Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products with hebels which failed:

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

PAn. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in viola. tion of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they "ere not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Rcgulations promulgated thereunder in the follmving respects:

(a) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder \'as mingled with non-required information, in violation of Rule 29 (a) of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products La.beling Act and the Rules and R.egulations promulgated thereunder was not completely set out on one side of labels, in violation of Rule 29 (a) of said Rules and Regulations.

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

Among uch falsely and deceptively invoiced iur products! but not limited thereto ere invoices pertaining to such fur products which failed:

(1) To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fut' product.

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

(8) To show the country of origin of the furs llsed in the fur product.

\H. 6. 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 Bules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (1) Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Hules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in abbreviated form, in violation of 1\u1e 4 of sa,ieI Rules and Regulations.

(2) The disclosure that fur products wore, composed in ,,-hole or substantial part of flanks ,vas not set forth in violation of Rule 20 of said EuJcs and Regulations.

, ,, L. HART AND SO:- CO. , L , ET AL.

Decision and Order PAR. 7. 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 snic1 Act, of certain newspaper advertisements, concerning said products which ,were not in accorchnce ,,'ith the provisions of Section 5(a) of the said Act and the Uules and Regulations promulgated thereunder; and which a,advertisements were intended too aid promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and oilering for sale of said fur prorluets.

PAH. 8. Among- and included in the advert.isements as aforesaid but, not limited thereto: were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the San .Jose :l\ercnry 1\ e.ws, a newspaper published in the city of San Jose, State of California, a.nd having a wide circulation in said State and various other States of the LTnited States. By means of said advertisements and ot.hers of similar import and meaning, not specifically referred to herein, respDllCle,nts falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertisements: (a) Re.presented prices of fur products as having been reduced from prmrious higher prices without giving the time of such c.compared higher prices in violation of Rule H (b) of said rules and Regulations. PAR. D. Hespondents in advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid made claims and representations respecting prices and values of fur produds. Said representations were of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (eI) of Rule 44 of the Rules anel Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act. R.esponuents in maj;;:ing such claims and rcpl'esentatjons 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.

PAH. 10. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling .Act .and the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder, and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federa.! Trade Commission Act.

DECISION AND ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint chargjng the respondents named in the caption hereof with violation of the Feeleral Trade Commission Aet and the Fur Products I.labeling Act, and the respondents having been served with notice of said determination and with a copy of the complaint the Commission int.ended to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and , Decision and Order 60 F.

The responc1e-nts and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondents of oJI the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint a. statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and docs not constitute f1,na.clmissioll by respondents that the law has been violated as set forth in the complaint, and wa.ivers and provisions as required by the Commission s rules; and The Commission, h 1Ving considered the -agreement, here.by accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement makes the follmring jurisdictional findings, and enters the iollowing order:

1. Respondent L. IIart a,ncl Son Co., Inc., is a corporation organized existing ancl doing business under and by virtue of the laws or the State or California" with its offce and principal place or business located at Santa Clara, and :Market Streets, San Jose, Calif. Respondent Alexander J. Ihut Tr. is an offcer or said corporation ancl his address is the same as that or said corporation. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction or the subject matter or this proceeding and of the respondents, ancl the proceeding is in the public interest.

OIilER I t is ordered That L. I-Iart ancl Son Co. Inc., 11 corporation, and Ale,xander J. Ha.rt, Jr., indivichmlly and as an offcer or said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents ancl employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in conne,ction ",yjth the introduction into commerce, or t.he sale, aclveltising, or offering for sale in commCI' , or the transportation, or distribution in commerce of rur products, or in connection with the sale" advert.ising, ofrering for sale, t.transportation, Or distribution or fur products ",vhic.h are made in ",whole or in pa,rt or fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as "commerce rur and " fur product" are defined in the Fur Produc.ts Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1-. :Misbrancling fur products by:

A. Failing to affx labels to fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information re(luirec1 to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

B. Setting forth on labels affxed to fur products information rcquired under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Hules and Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled with nonrequired information.

STA. DARD HADKERCHIEF CO. , INC. , ET AL. Syllabus C. Failing to set forth all the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder on the one side of labels. 2. Falsely 01' 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. E. Setting forth information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fnr Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulga,ted thereunder in abbreviated form.

C. Failing to disclose that fur products are composed in whole 01' in substantial part of flanks when such is the fact. 3. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, representation, public annowlcement, 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) Uses previous higher prices as comparatives without giving the time of such higher compared prices.

4. .Making claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (0), (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 i8 further ordered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Connnission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and