Traksair, Inc.

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

in which it has complied with this order.

Ix Tile 1\1:.: TTER OF TRAKSAIR, INC., ET AL.

ORDER, ETC., IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE J"EmiRAL TRADE cOltunSSION AXD THE TEXTILE :FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket 840.9. Complaint, JWle IDCI-Dccf 'ivn, Api'. . , 19U2 Order requiring sellers of women s shoes fwd wearing apparel in Holl:nvood Calif., to cease violating the Federal Trade Commission Act by advertisements in ne\\'spapers, magazines, and catalogs wbicb read in part: VALUES TO $39.8;) EAOH! 3 PAIRS BRAXD NE\V SHOES. . . OKLY $9.95" along witlt depictions of women s late style shoes with well-known brand names . . . Petite Panties. . . Imported froll Fl'tlre, and "Thousands of beautiful blouses. . . all gorgeous imports. . . , when the shoes offered ,were not late style or of thc name brands listed and the lingerie and some of the blouses were Dot imports; and by stating falsely "J'ou must be 100% satisfied. . . 01' your money !Jack" ; and to lease violating the Textie Fiber Products Identification Act b:l' failng to label women wearing apparel as required and to maintain proper records showing the fiber content of the textile fiber products they manufactured. COl\IPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Transair, Inc., and Prudential , ,, TRAKSAIR, INC. , ET AL, 695 694 Complaint :Manufacturing, Inc.: corporations, and ::dorris Kaplan, individual.lly and as an oliker of said corporations, hereinafter referred to as respondents, hrLVe violated the provisions of said Acts and the R.uses and Regulations promulgated under the. Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and BariJen Corp., a corporation, and Harold C. Schlosberg, individually and as an offcer of said Barilen Corp., and athan I\"atz, 1\iiles She.fferman and Jack Blagman, individually and as copartners trading as The Black\\-ood Company, hereinafter refelted to as respondent.s, have violated the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding' by it in respect thereof 'Tould be in the public interest hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in tlult respect as follo,,s:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondents Transair Inc., and Prudential :Manufacturing, Ine., are corporations organized, existing and doing business lmc1er and by virtue of the. In"s of the. State of California with their principal offce. and place. of lmsiness located at 1085 North Oxford, Hol1ywood29, Calif.

Respondent 1\1:orris Kaplan is an orEcpr of the. corporate respondents and formulates, dirC'.ds and controls nw. act " policies flll(l practices of the corpol'lite respondents. I-lis arldress is the s me lS that of the corporate respondents.

Respondents fldvertise. ancl sell tlwir merchandise unrler the. names of JHaurice de Paree lanrice of I-Iol1ywood and Lang-forrls. PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effectiw date of the Textile Fiber Products Identification .Act on J\Iarc.h 3) 1860, respondents named in pfLragl'aph 1 hate bee. n a.nr1 fire', 110\\- pnp"a ed in the introduction, delivery for introdnction, mannfactl1rp. for introduction, sale, aclvertising and offning for sale in commerce, flJFl in the trnnsportation or causing to be trnnsportec1 in C0111101'Ce. ami the importrt1 ion into the United States. of textile. fiber products: and how sold, offered for sale, adve.rtised, delivered. transported and caused to be transported, textile fiber prodnets ,'\hieh had been nc1vertiserl or offered for sale in commel Ce.; nncl hnxe. sold, offered for sale, aclvertisecl, delivered: transported and cfllsed to be t.transported, after shipment in commerce, textile fiber products hethel' in their original state or contained in other textile. fiber prodncis; as the terms "commerce.e and "textile fiber products" are defined in thc Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

PAR. 3. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents na.med in paragraph 1 in that they were not stamped. tagged, or labeled as required under the provisions of Scctiou 4(bJ , 696 FEDERAL TRADE COMMrSSIO).T DECISIOXS Complaint 60 F. T.

of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, was women s wearing apparel which had no stamp, tag, label or other means of identification on or affxed to such products. PAR. 4. Respondents named in paragraph 1 have failed to maintain l'roper records showing the fibcr content of the textile fiber products manufactured by them, in violation of Section 6 (a) of thc Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Rule 39 of the Regulations promulgated thereunder.

PAR. 5. Respondents named in paragraph 1 in the course. and conduct of their business, as aforesaid, \'\Bre and are in substantial competition in commerce with corporations, firms and indi,-iduals like\\i58 engaged in the manufactl1re a.nd sale 01' textile fiber products. PAR. 6. The acts and practices of- re,spondents named in paragra.ph 1 as set forth above \were, and arc, in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder and constituted, and now constitute llnfa,ir and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce within the intent' and me,aning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 7. R.respondents Transair, Inc. , Prudential ::Ianufacturing, Inc., and their offcers, are now, and for some time last past have been engaged in the advertising, offering for sale sale and distribution of women s shoes and wearing apparel.

PAR. 8. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents now cause, and for sometime last past have caused, their said apparel and shoes, when sold, to be shipped from their place of business in the State of California to purchasers thereof located in various other states of the United States, and maintain, and at all times mentioned herein have maintained, a substantial course of trade in sftid merc.handise in commerce, as "commerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 9. Respondent BariJen Corp. is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and hy virtue of t.he laws of the State of New York, with its principal office and place of business located at 730 Third A venue, 'Sew York Respondent IIaroJd C. Schlosberg' is an offcer of respondent Barilen Corp. 1-Ie fonnulates, directs and controls the acts, policies and practices of the corporate respondent. His address is the same as that of the corporate respondent.

TRANSAIR, INC. , ET AL. 697 694 Complaint Respondents Nathan Katz Iiles Shafferman and Jack I3agman arc individuals and copartners trading as The Blackwood Company \with their offce and principal place of business located at 480 Lexington Avenue, Kew York Respondents BariJcn Corp. and The Blackwood Company are advertising agencies of the respondents Transair, Inc., and Prudential :\Janufactul'ing, Inc., iyho place and pay for the, adycrtisements supplied by Transair, Inc., and Prudential j)Ianufaeturing, Inc. , in nciYSpapers and magal,;ines and receive a percent,age of proceeds of sales of merchandise resulting from said advertisements. An of the respondents collaborate in carrying out the acts and practices hereinafter set fOlih.

PAR. 10. In the course and conduct of their business, and for the purpose of inducing the sale of said women s apparel and shoes, respondents have made certain statements with respect to the importation, the brand, and the style of certain of their products and the refund to purchasers of money paid therefor, in advertisements in newspapers, magazines and catalogs of which the folloiYing are typical:

GRAn BAG FA:'TASY! VALUES TO 589.95 EACH! 3 PAIRS BRAND :-mw SHOES EACH PAIR DIFFERE:\TT O:'H SD.

FOR ALL 'three PAIRS THIS IS PROBABLY THE :l:IADDEST SALE OF DRESS SHOES OF ALL TIME-A:\D VERY LIKELY TJ-I'J :\IOST PAXTASTIC BARGAJX YOL"LL EVER GET.

'" '" * REMEl\RER EACH PAIR OF SHOES IS BRAND ;\,T;'V (Depiction of women s late style shoes with brand names such as 1. Miler, PaEzzio, Delman, De Liso Debs, etc. . . . Petite Panties. . .

Imported from France Thousands of beautiful blouses. . . aU gorgeous imports. . .

PAR. 11. Through the use of the aforesaid statements and depictions respondents represented;

1. That the purchaser \vill receive late style S)10CS similar to those depicted, each pair being one of the name brands listed. 2. That said lingerie is imported from France. 3. That an of said blouses are imported into the United States. , 698 IFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint 60 F.

PAn. 12. Said statements and representations were false, misleading and deceptive. In truth and in fact:

1. The shoes offered in the advertisement were not late style shoes similar to those depicted and each pair was not one of the name brands listed.

2. Said lingerie was not imported from France but was manufactured in this country.

3. Cert,ain of said blouses Were not imported but were manufac- . tured in this country.

PAll. 13. Respondents used such statements as "yon must be 1000/0 satisfied as to fit or quality or every penny wil be reflUlded" you must be 1000/ satisfied as to fit or quality or your money back" thereby representing that the purchase price will be refunded voluntarily and promptly to the purchaser upon demand. PAR. 14. Said statements and represent.ations were fa.lse, misleading and deceptive. In truth and in fact, the purchase price of merchandise is seldom refunded upon demand of the purchaser except after.r intervention of the Better Business Bureaus ill the purchaser s behalf. PAl. 15. Respondents Tmnsair, Inc., and Prudential Manufacturing, Inc., in the conduct of their business, at a11 times mentioned here- , have been in substant.ial competition, in commerce, "With corporations, firms and individuals in the sale of women s apparel and shoes of the same general kind and nature as that sold by said respondents. PAR. 16. Respondents Barilen Corp. and Harold C. Schlosberg and Nathan Katz, l\liles Shellel'man nnd J aekBlagman, individually and as eopartners trading as The Blackwood Company are nmv, and have been, in subst mtial competit.ion, in commerce, 'ivith eorporatic,ns, firms and individuals engaged in the advertising business. m. 17. The use by respondents of the aforesaid false, misleading and deceptive statements, representa60ns and practices has had, and now has, the capacity and tendency to mislead members of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said statements and representations ,were and are true and into the purchase of substantial quantities of respondents' product by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief. As it consequence thereof, substantial trade in commerce has been, and is being, unfairly diverted to respondents from their competitors and substantinJ injury has thereby been, and is being, done to competition in commerce. PAn. 18. The aforesa.id acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, were, and are, all to the prejudice and injury of the public a.nd of respondents' competitors a.nd constituted, and now constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of COff- TRAI\"' SAIR, Tht, ET AL. 699 694 Initial Decision petition, in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

llfr. Oharles W. O' Oonnell for thc Commission. Mr. Howard A. Heffron of Shapiro Heffron of New York, N. for Barilen respondents; Mr. Arnold Katz of New York, N. , for Blackwood respondents; no appearance for other respondents. INITIAL DECISION BY ,VILMER L. TINIJ , Heart -'G EXAMINER The Federal Trade Commission, on June 1, 1961, issued and subsequently served its complaint in this proceeding upon the respondents named in the caption hereof charging them with unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce in the advertising and sale of women s shoes and 'wearing apparel in violation of the Federal Trade Commission \ct; and charging 1'e. spondents Transair, Inc., Prudentittl :Manufacturing, Inc. , and forris Kaplan with violations of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Upon the application of certain of thc respondents, the time for answering the complaint as to an respondents was extended to September 15, 1961; and at the same time the initial hearing scheduled in the complaint for August 8 , 1961 , in ,y Rshington, D. , was postponed and rescheduled for September 2G, IDGl. All of the parties were duly notified of such extension and postponement. Answer to the complaint was not filed by any respondent; and no appearance was made by or on behalf of any respondent at the hearing which was held on September 2G, IDGl, in vVashington, D. , before the undersigned hearing examiner, theretofore duly designated to hear this proceeding.

On September G , ID61 , a motion to dismiss, with supporting affdavit, was filed on behalf of respondents Barilen Corp. and Hyman C. Schlosberg (erroneously named in the complaint as Harold C. Schlosberg), which respondents are sometimes herein referred to as the Barilen respondents; and on September 22, IDGl, a similar motion to dismiss, with supporting affdavit, was filed on behalf of respondents Nathan Katz, Miles Shefferman and Jack Blagman, individually and as copartners, trading as The Blackwood Company, which respondents are sometimes herein referred to as the Blackwood respondents. Both tho Barilcn and the Blackwood respondents requested further extension of time to answer the complaint in the event their motions to dismiss should be denied.

Counsel supporting the complaint appeared at the hearing on September 2G, 19G1, and stated that he did not desire to offer any evi- 700 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISION& Initial Deeision 60 F.

donce in support of the charges of the complaint with respect the Barilen and Blackwood respondents, and that he did not oppose the motions to dismiss as to those respondent.s. At the hearing on September 26, 1961, counsel supporting the complaint stated that negotiations for the purpose of disposing of the charges by a consent order as to respondents Transair, Inc., Prudential Manufacturing, Inc., and '\Torris Kaplan were initiated on behalf of those respondents by their counsel (who has not filed a notice of appearance in this proceeding), but that those negotiations were unsuccessful and had been terminated. Counsel support6ng the complaint also stated that he advised counsel for those respondents that in the event of their failure to answer the complaint and to appear at the initial hearing, he would ask that they be held in default and that an order to cease and desist be entered against them on that basis.

At the hearing on September 26, 1961, counsel supporting the complaint proposed a form of order (CX 1A and B) which he considered appropriate ,with respect to respondents Transair, Inc., Prudential :L\manufacturing, Inc. , and )101'1'i8 lCaplan, and moved that it be issued on the basis of default by those respondents by reason of their failure to answer the complaint or to appear at the initial hearing. In that order counsel supporting the complaint also proposed that the complaint be dismissed as to the Barilen and the Blackwood respondents.

Upon considerat.ion of the foregoing c.circumstances disclosed t.he record, the hearing examiner grants the motions to dismiss as to the Barilen and Dlack,,ood respondents; and finds that the remaining respondents Transair, Inc., Prudential l\lanufflcturing, Inc., and iorris ICaplan, are in default under the Commission s Rules of Practice by reason of their failure to ans,,er the complaint or to appear at the initial hearing. 1-Ie now, therefore, issues his initial decision, finding the facts as to the defa ult.ng respondents to be as alleged in the complaint, entering an order considered by him to be ,varranted by such facts, the order being essentially that proposed at the hearing by counsel support.ng the complaint, and dismissing the complaint as to the Barilen and Blackwood respondents. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The respondents named in subsections (a) and (b) of this section are the respondents hercafter referred to in these findings. (a) Respondents Transair, Inc., and Prudential l\lanufactllring, Inc., are corporations organized, existing and doing business under and TRAL"\SAIR , INC. , ET AL. 701 694 Initial Decision by virtue of the laws of the State of California with their principal offce and place of business located at 1085 North Oxford, Hollywood , Calif.

(b) Respondent Morris Kaplan is an offcer of the corporate respondents and formulates, directs and controls the acts, policies and practices of the corporate respondents. His address is the same as that of the corporate respondents.

(c) Respondents advertise and sell their merchandise under the names of )fanrice de Paree, Maurice of Hollywood and Langfords. 2. The corporate respondent.s and their offcers are now, and for SOIne time have been, engaged in the advertising, offering for sale, sale and distribution of women s shoes and ,vearing apparel. 3. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents now cause, and for some time have caused, their said apparel and shoes when sold, to be shipped from their place of business in the State of California to purchasers thereof located in various other states of the lJnited States, and maintain, and at a.11 times mentioned herein have maintained, a substantial course of trade in said merchandise in CODilerce, as "oo1111nerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Conuission Act.

4. Subsequent to the effective date of thc Textile Fiber Products Identification Act on )Iarch 3, 1960, respondents have been and are now engaged in the int.production, dcIivery for introduction, manufacture for introduction, sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, and the importation into the lJnited States, of textile fiber products; and have sold, ouered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, textilc fiber products, which had been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; and have sold offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, after shipment in commerce, textile fiber products whether in their original state or contained in other textile fiber and "textileproducts. As used in this section, the terms "commerce" fiber products" are intended to have the mea,nings defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

5. In the course and conduct of their business, and for the purpose of inducing the sa-1e of said women s apparel anrl shoes, respondents have made certain statements with respect to the importation, the brand, and the sty Ie of certain of their products and the refund to purchasers of money paid therefor, in advertisements in newspapers magazines and catalogs of which the following are typical: 702 ,FEDERAL TRADE COMlnSSLON DECISIONS Initial Decision 60 F.

GRAB BAG ANTASY! VALUES TO $39.95 EACH! 3 PAIRS BRAND NEW snOES EACH PAIR DIFFEREKT ONLY $9.

FOR ALL THREE PAIRS HIS IS PROBABLY THE MADDEST SALE OF DRESS SHOES OF ALL TDIE-AND VERY LIKELY Tim MOST FANTASTIC BARGAIN YOU'LL EVER GET.

"' '" * RE:'lE:\lBER EACH PAIR OJf' SHOES IS BRAND NEIY . . .

(Depiction of women s late style shoes with brand names such as 1. ri1er, Palizzio, Delman, De Lisa Debs, etc. . . . Petite Panties. . .

Imported from France Thousands of beautiful blouses. . all gorgeous imports. . .

6. Through the use of the aforesaid statements and depictions re spondents represented:

(a) That the purchaser \ ill receive latc style shoes similar to those depicted, en,eh pair being one of the name brands listed. (11) That said lingerie is imported from France. (c) That al! of said blouses arc imported into the United States. 7. Said statements and representations were false, misleading and deceptive. In truth and in fact:

(a) The shoes offered in the advertisements were not late style shoes similar to those depicted and each pair was not one of the name brands listed.

(b) Said lingerie was not imported from France but was manufactured in this country.

(c) Certain of said blouses were not imported but were manufactured in this country.

8. Hespondents used such statements as ':you must be 100% satisfied as to fit or quality or every penny will be refunded you must be 100% satisfied as to fit or quality or your money back " thereby representing that the purchase price will be refunded voluntarily and promptly to the purchaser upon demand. 9, Said statements and representations were false, misleading and deceptive. In truth and in fact, the purchase price of merchandise is seldom refunded upon demand of the purchaser except after intervention of the Better Business Bureaus in the purchaser s behalf. 10. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by re- TRA.'1SAIR , INC. , ET AL. 703 694 Initial Decision spondents in that they were not sta.mped, tagged, or labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules. and Regulations promulgated under' said Act. Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, ,vas women wearing apparel which had no stamp, tag, label or other means of identification on or affxed to such product.s. 11. Hespondents have failed to maintain proper records shmying the fiber content of thc textile fiber products manufactured by them as required by Section 6 (a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Rule 39 of the Ilegulations promulgated thereunder. 12. The corporate respondents and their offcers in the conduct of their business, at an times mentioned herein, have been in substantial competition, in commerce with corporations, firms and individuals in the sale of women s apparel and shoes of the same general kind and nature as sold by respondents; and have been in substantial competition in commerce with corporations, firms and individuals likewise engaged in the manufacture and sale of textile fiber products. 13. The use by respondents, as hereinabove found, of the false, mjsleading and deceptive statements, representations and practices has had, and now has, the capacity and tendency to mislead members of the purchasing pllbJic into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said statements and represent.ations were and are true, and into the pur chase of substantial quantities of respondents' products by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief; and the rnisbra.ncling of textile fiber products by respondents, and the fa.ilure of respondents to maintain proper records of such products, as hereinabove found, have contributed to the de,ceptive capacity and tendency of their practices sub-in connectioll with such products. As a consequence thereof, stantial trade in commerce has been, and is being, unf Lirly djverted to respondents from their competitors and substantial injury has thereby been, a.nd is being, done to competition in commerce. COXCLUSJONS The a.foresaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein found were, and are, all to the prejudice and iujury of the public and of respondents' competitors and constituted, and 11m" constitute, unfair and deceptive acts a,nd practices and unfair methods of comprtition in commerce, within the inte,nt and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

The misbranding of textile fiber products by respondents, and the failure of respondents to maintain proper records showing the fiber Initial Decision 60 F. content of such products manufactured by them, as herein found were, and are, in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Re6'1lations promulgated thereunder, aud constituted, and now constitute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in COll1nerce within the intent and meaning of the Fcdcral Trade Commission Act. ORDER 1. It is ordered That respondents Transair, Inc., and Prudential lanufacturing, Inc., corporations, and their offcers, and Morris Kaplan, individually and as an offeer of said corporations, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection -with the offering for sale sale or distribution of women s shoes, "women s wearing apparel, or any other product, in C0ll1nerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: a. Representing, directly or by implication, that women s shoes or any other product, arc of a certain brand or style, or that they have any other attribute, unless such is the fact. b. Representing, directly or by implication, that women s blouses lingerie, or R,ny other products, are importeel, unless such is the fact. c. Representing, directly or' by implication, that respondents win make refunds for unsatisfactory goods or merchandise unless such refunds are made promptly upon demand by the purchaser. 2. It is fllrther o1'lered That respondents Transair, Inc., and Prudential )'fa.nufacturing, Inc. , corporations, and their offcers, and Morris Kaplan, individually and as an offcer of said corporations nd respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device in connection ,,"ith the introduction, delivery for introduction, manufacture for introduction, sale advertising, or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, or the importfltion into the United States of textile fiber products, Or in connection with the sale offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported, of textile fiber products which have been advertised or offered for sale in conuerce, or in connection with the sa.1e, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported, after shipment in commerce, of textile fiber products whether in their origina.l state or contained in other textile fiber products (as "commerce" and "textile fiber products" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act), do forthwith cease and desist from:

COOPCHIK-FORREST, INC. , ET AL. 705 694 Syllabus a. Misbranding textile fiber products by:

(1) Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, invoicing, advertising, or otherwise identifying such products as to the name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein; (2) Failing to affx labels to such products showing each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

b. Failing to maintain records of fiber content of textile fiber products manufactured by them, as required by Section 6 (a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Rule 39 of the Regulations thereunder.

3. It is f"rther ordered That the complaint be, and the same hereby , dismissed as to Barilen Corp., a corporation, and Hyman C. Schlosberg (erroneously named in the complaint as Harold C. Schlosberg), individually and as an offcer of said corporation, and :Nathan Katz, Miles Shefferman and J aok BJagman, individually and as copartners trading as The Blackwood Company. FINAL ORDER The Commission by its order of Kovember 7, 1961, having placed this case on itso\'v"T docket for review; and The Commission now having concluded that the iuitiaI decision of the hearing examiner is appropriate in all respects to dispose of this proceeding:

It is o'lde'l'ed That the initial decision of the hearing examiner filed October 5, 1961, be, and it hereby is, adopted as the decision of the Commission.

It is f"rther ordered That respondents, Transair, Inc., a corporation and Prudential Manufacturing, Iuc., a corporation, and Morris Kaplan, 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 the order to cease and desist.