Janice Juniors, Inc.

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

Ix THE J\1ATTR OF JANICE JlJKIORS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IX REGARD '1' THE ALLEGED 'VTOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COl\DIISSION AND THE FLA::UIABLE FABRICS ACTS Docket 0-81. Complaint, Pcb. 1962-Decision, Feb. , 1.962 Consent order requiring New York City manufacturers to cease ' violating the Flammable Fabrics Act by sellng in commerce dresses which were so highly flammable as to be dangerous when worn, and furnishing customers with a false guaranty that the required tests were made and showed the dresses not to be highly flammable.

COl\IPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Flammable Fabrics Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Tracie Commission, having reason to believe that J anice Juniors, Inc., a corporation, N at Rolfe and Phil Rolfe, individually and as offcers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Hules and Regulations promulgated under the Flammable Fabrics Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues jts c0111plaint, stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. R.respondent J twice J unial's, Inc., is a corporation duly organized, exis6ng and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of ew York. Hespondents Nat Rolfe and Phil Rolfe are President and Secretary, respectively, of Janice Juniors Inc. The individual respondents formulate, direct and control the policies, acts and practices of said corporate respondent. The business address of all respondents is 1400 Broadway, New York PAR. 2. Respondents, subsequent to July 1 , 1954, the effective date of the Flammable Fabrics Act, have manufactured for sale, sold and Dflerec1 for sale, in commerce; Imve imported into the 'United States; and have introduced, delivered for introduction, transported ancl caused to be transported, in commerce; and have tl ansportec1 and caused to be transported for the purpose of sale or delivery after sale in commerce; as "commerce:' is defined in the Fhunmable Fabrics Act, articles of wearing apptlrel, as the tenn "article of wearing apparel" is defined therein, which articles of wearing apparel were under Section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act, as amended, so highly fla,l1m Lble as to be dangerous when worn by individuals. , JAXICE Jr IORE, INC. , ET AL. 347 Decision and Order Among the articles of wearing apparel mentioned hereinabove were dresses.

PAR. 3. Respondents, subsequent to July 1, 1954, the effective chtte of the Flamma-ble Fabrks Act, have manufactured for sale, sold and offered for sale, articles of wearing apparel made of fabric which was, under SectiDll 4 of the Act, as amended, so highly flammable as to be dangerous when Vi'orn by individuals, which fabric had been shipped and received in comnlerce, RS the terms "article of wearing apparel" fabric" and "commerce" axe defined in the Fla,mmable Fabrics Act.

Anlong the articles of wearing apparel lnentioncd above \were dressc2.

PAR. 4. Re.spondents have furnished their customers with a guaranty with respect to the articles of wearing apparel mentiDlled paragraphs 2 and 3 hereof, to the effect that reasonable and represent.ative test.s made under the procedures provided in Section 4 of the Flamma.ble l, abrics Act, as amended, and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, show that said articles of wearing apparel are not, in the form delivered by respondents, so highly fianllnable under the provisions of thc Flammable Fllbrics Act as to be clangerous when orn by individuals. There was reason for respondents to believe that the articles of ,,-hearing apparel covered by such gnaranty might be introduced: sold, or transported in commerce. Said guaranty was -false in t.hat with respect to some of said articles of wearing apparel respondents have not made such reasonable and epresent.ati ve tests.

PAR. 3. Tl1c acts and practices of respondents herein alleged were and are in violation oJ the Flammable Fabrics Act and of the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and as such constitute unfair and c1ece.pti'Te acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce -within the intent and meaning of the Federa.. Tra.de Commission Act.

DECISIO D ORDER The COIrunission having J1eretofore determined to issue its conlplaint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Flammable Fabrics Act, and the respondents having been served with notice of said cleterminatjon and ,, ith a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to jSSllC together ,,-ith 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 'TRADE COMJ"\ISSIOK DECISIONS.348 FEDERAL Decision and Order GO F.

respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in t.he complaint to issue herein, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by re.spondents that the la -w has been violated as set forth in such 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. Respondent Janice Juniors, Inc., is a corporation organ.nized1 existing and doing business under and by virtue of the la\"s of the State of Kew York, with business address at 1400 Broad,,"y, Kew York Respondents Kat Rolfe and Phil Rolfe are offcers of said corporation and their a.dc1ress 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 respondent Janice Juniors, Inc., a. corporation and its offcers, and respondents Nat Rolfe and Phil Rolfe, individua11y and as offcers of saill corporation, and respondents' revresenta.tives, agents a.nd employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. (oJ Importing into the United States; 01' (b) :\Ianufacturing for sa, , selling, offering for sale, introducing, delivering for introduction, transporting or causing to be transported in commerce, as "commerce" is c1eJined in t.he Flammable Fabrics Act; or ( c) Transporting or causing to be transported, for the purpose of sale or delivery aftet sale in commerce;

any article of \"e tring apparel \,which, under' the provisions of Section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act: as amended, is so highly flammable as to be da,ngerous when worn by individuals. 2. fanufacturing for sale, selling, 01' offering for sale any article of ,ycaring apparel made of fabric, which fabric has been shipped or received in commerce, and which under Section 4 of the Act, as amended, is so highly flammable as t.o be dangerous when '\orn by individuals.

CAX'ADIA:\T FUR CORP. ET AL. 349 Decision and Order 3. Furnishing to any person a guaranty with respect to any article of wearing apparel 'which respondents, or any of them, have reason to belieys may be introduced, sold or transported in commerce, which guaranty represents, contrary to fact, that reasonable and repre. sentative test.s made under the procedures provided in Section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act as amended, and the Rules and Regulations thereunder, show and w'i11 sho,,, that the article of wearing appa.rel covered by the guaranty, is not, in the form delivered or to be delivered by the guarantor, so highly fiamm lblc under' the provisions of the Flflnmable Fabrics Act as to be dangerous when worn by individuals, provided, howcyer, that this prohibition shall not be applicable to a guaranty furnished on the basis of, and in reliance upon a guaranty to the sanle effect received by respondents in good faith signed by and containing tho name and address of the person by whom t.he fabric contained in the said article of ,,-caring apparel was manufactured or frolll whom it was received. It is flu,thm' ordered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission fl report in writing setting forth in detail the manner" and form in ,,-which they h,lYC complied with this order. THE )IATTER OF CANADIAX FUR CORPORATION ET AL.

CONSF. T ORDER , ETC. , IN BEGAHD TO THE ALLEGED VIOL"\TION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE C02\DfTSSTOX AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELDW ACTS Docket C-82. Comp aint, Feb. 19G2-Dec' , Feb. , 1962 Consent order requiring Nevmrk, KJ. , furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failng to show in labeling, invoicing, and advertising, the true animal name -of fur used in fur products; to show on labels the name of the registercrl manufacturer, etc. ; to disclose on invoices when fur was artificially colored or composed of flanks, and the country of origin of imported furs; hy invoicing "Japanese l\link" as " dink", and failng to set forth the term "Persian Lamb" as required on invoices; by failing in other respects to comply with labeling and invoicing requirements; by advertising which represented prices of fur products as reduced from regular prices which were, in fact, fictitious, and represented prices falsely as cut ;'0% and more " ; ancl by failng- to keep adequate records as a basis for price and value claims.

350 FEDERAL ' ADE CO:vMISSION DECISIOKS Complaint 60 F.

COl\IPLAIXT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act and by virtue of the authority sted in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that Canadian Fur Corporation, a Xew York corporation and Canadian Fur Corporation, a K evt J ersoy corporation, and .J acob Dornfeld and Morris Dornfeld, individually and as offcers of the sflid corporations, and Sidney Dornfeld, individually and as general ma.nager of fur operations of the said corporations, hereinafter 1'efelted to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulat.ions promulgated under-r 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, he.reby issues its complaint stat.ing its charges in that respect as follmvs: \RAGIL\PH 1. Respondent Canadian Fur Corporation is tL corporation organized, exist.ing and doing business under and by virtue of the. la,ys of the State of XCI"\ York, and respondent Canadian Fur Corporation is a. corporation orga,nized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State. of Kew Jersey. The offce and principal place of business of both corporations is 1300 lcCartcr Higlnyay, Newark Re,ponclent Jacob Dornfeld is secretary of thc :'ew York corporation, and vice president of the ew .J ersey corporation. Respondent 1\"orris Dornfeld is treasurer of the New York corporation, and secretary and treasurer of the Nmv Jersey corporation. Respondent Sidney Dornfeld js general manager of the fur operations of the said corporate respondents. These individuals control, direct and formulate the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondents. The offce and principal place of business of these individuals is the same as that of the said corporate respondents. PAR. 2. Subsequcnt to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, re.spondents 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 transport.ation and distribution, in commerce, of fur products; a,nd have sold, advertised 0frerecl for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which hfld shipped and received jn commerce, as the terms "conm1erce, "fur:: and "fur product' are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

\H. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were not lab€led as required under the provisions of Sc-ction 4(2) CANADIAN FUR CORP. ET AL. 351 349 Complaint of the Fur Products Labeling Aet and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated theretmder. Among such misbranded fur products. but not limited thereto, were fur products with labels which failed:

1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product. 2. To show the name, or other identification issued a.nd registered by the Commission, of one or more of the persons who manufactured such fur product for introduction into commerce, introduced it into commerce, sold it in commerce, advertised or offered it for sale, in commerce, or transported or distributed it in commerce. PAn. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they WGre not labeled in ,ccorc1allce 'with the Rules and Regulations promulgated theTcunc1er i11. the following respects:

(a) Information required under Section 4(2) of thc Fur Products Labeling Act and the Hules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fm- Products Labeling Act and the llules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was mingled with non-required information, in violation of Hule 29 (a) of said Hules and Hegulations.

(c) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in handwrit,ng on labels, in violation of Rule 29 (b) of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products \\81'e falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondents in that they \\"ere not invoiced as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the Hules and Regulations promulgated under such -"c\.cL 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 bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

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

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products ""cre falscJy 'tnd deceptively invoiced with respect to the name of the animal that produced the , 352 FEDERAL TRADE CO 1::vIIS.SION DECISTO:\S Complaint !J0 F. fur from which the fur products had been manufactured, in violatioll of Section 5 (b) (2) or the Fur Products Labeling Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products which 'ivcre invoiced as being J\link, when they \Ycre, in fact Japanese :Mink" PAR. 7. Certain or said fur products were falsely and dcceptivcly invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and HcgulaUons 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 thereunclcT was set forth in abbreviated form, in violation of R.ule 4 of said Rules aud Regulations.

(b) The terlTI "Persian Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required, in violation of Rule 8 of said Rules and Regulations. (c) Invoices failed to disclose that fur products were c:composed in whole or in substantial part of flanks, ,vhen such was the fa, , in violation of Rule 20 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised, in violation or the Fur Products Labcling Act in that respondents ca,used the dissemination in commerce as "commerce is defined in said Act, of certain newspaper advert.isements, concerning said products, which were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 (a) or the said Act and t.he Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder; and which advert1scments were intended to aid promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of said fur products.

.-\, D, Among and included in the advertisements as aforesaid but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents, which appeared in issues of the Xewark News, a newspaper published in the City or Kewark, State of Kew Jersey, and having a wide circulation in said State and various other States of the United States. By means of said advertisements and others of similar import and mmwing, not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that. said advertisements: (a) Fa,filed to disclose the name or munes of the a.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 thc Fur Products LabeJjug Act.

(b) Represented prices of fur products as having been reduced from regular or usual prices whcTe the so-called regular or usual prices were in fact fictitious in that they were not the prices at which said merchandise was usually sold by respondents in the recent regular CAN ADIA:' FUR CORP. ET AL. 353 349 Deci':ion and Order course of business, ill violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rulc44( a) of said Rules and Regulations. (c) Represented through percentage savings claims such as "prices cut 500/0 and lTIOre" that prices of fur products were reduced in direct proportion to the percentage of savings stated, when such was not the fact, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 10. Respondents, in advertising fur products for sale as aforesa.id, made claims and representations respecting prices and voJues of fur products. Said representations were of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Hules 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 blLsed, in violation of Rule 44 (e) of said Rules ancl Hegulations.

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 Reguhttions promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the. Federal Tra.de Commission Act. DECISlOX A::rD ORDER The COllunission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint c.charging the respondents named in the c.aption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Produc.s Labeling Act, a.nd the respondents having been served 'with notice of said determination and 'ivith a copy of the comphint 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 ordcr, an admission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the com plaint to issue herein, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the Jaw has been violated as set forth in such compla.int, 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 s tid agreement, makes the following jurisc1ictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Ca.nadian Fur Corporation is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under' and by virtue of the laws , 354 FEDERAL TRADE COM:vISSIO Decisions Decision and Order 60 the State of New York, and respondent Canadian Fur Corporation is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Jersey. The offce and principal place of business of both corporations is 1300 McCarter Highway, Newark Respondent .J acob Dornfcld is secretary of the X ew York corporation and vice president of the New Jersey corporation. Respondent j)IoTl'is Dornfeld is treasure.) of the New Yark corporation and sccrebry and treasurer of the New Jersey corporation. Respondent Sidney Dornfeld is general manager of the fur operations of the said corporate respondents. The offce and principal place of business of these individuals 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 -iJ O1'de1'd That respondents Canadian Fur Corporation, a Xew Yark corporation, and its offcers, and Canadian Fur Corporation, a X ew .J ersey corporation, and its offcers, and .J acob Dornfeld and lorris Dornfeld, individually and as offcers of said corporations, and Sidney Dornfeld, individually and as general manager of the fur operations of the said corporations, and respondents' representatives agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with tho introduction into commerce, or the sale advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution, in COITnerce, of any fur product, or in connection with the sale, advertising, oflering for sale, transportation, or distribution of any fur product which is made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received, in eonnnerce, as "comlnerce fur and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products LabeEng Act do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Iisbranding fur products by:

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

B. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products: 1. Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

CAXADIAK Fer CORP. ET AL. 355 Decision and Order 2. Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder Iningled with non-required information.

3. Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the R.ules and R.eguh16011S promulgated thereunder in handwriting.

2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. I, ailing to furnish invokes to purchasers of fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible 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 information requiredlUlder Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

C. Failing to set forth the term "Persian Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the word "Lamb D. Failing t.o disclose t.hat fur products arc composed in whole or in substantial part of flanks, when such is the fact. 3. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products or otherwise falsely or deceptively identifying such fur products with respect to the name or names of the animal or anilnals that produced the fur from which such fur products were manufactured.

4. 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, direct.ly or indirectly, in the sale, or offering for sale of fur products and ,,,which: A. Fails to disclose:

1. 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 find as prescribed under the said Rules and R,egulatiolls. B. He,presents, directly or by implication, that the regular or usual price of a,ny fur product is any amount which is in excess of the price at 'which respondents have usually a,ncl customarily sold such products in the recent regular course of business.

C. R,epresent.s through percentage savings claims that prices of fur products are reduced in direct proportion to the percentage of savings stated w heu such is not the fact.

5. iakjng claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and negula- 1:ions promulgated under the Fur l;'roducts Labeling Act unless there 356 :FEDERAL TRADE CO ns.SIO DECISIONS Complaint 60 :F' are ma.intained by respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are bllsed. It i.s jltl'he'i' onlered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) da.ys 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.