The Ring, Inc.

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

form in '.Thieh it has complied ,with this order. Ix THE jL\TTER OF THE RING, IKC.

COXSEXT onD!m: E' , e;r REG-And TO TJIE ALLEGED YlOLATIQ:: OF SEC. 2 (c1) OF THE CL\YTOX ACT Docket C-1G5. Complaint, July ltJ, lD62-Decision, Jul!l13, 1%2 Consent order requiring the I\ ew York City publisher of "Ring" find onler llwgazille.s to CNlf;E' c1iscrimir.atiIJg in price in viulation of Sec. (d) of the Clayton Act by paying promotional allowances to certain rctnil customerssome of "\whom operated chain retail 0111.et8 in railroad, airport, and bus terminals, and outlets in hotels and offce buildings, and others of \"hom furnisher) services in connection \with the handling of respondent' s Imbrications such as taking purchase orders and distributing, billng, and collecting -while not muking such payments available on IJ1' opOl'tionally equal terms to their competitors, including drug chains, grocery chains, and other newsstands.

COJlIPL.'\TXT The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to be.have thflt the party responclen t: name,cl in the cflption hereof and hereinafter more particularly designated and described, has vioJatcd and is not violating the provisions of subsection (d) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act (D. C. Title 15, Sec. 13), as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act hereby issues its complaint stating its cha.rges with respect thereto as follows:

PAR,\GIL\PH 1. Respondent The Ring, Inc., is a corporation organized and doing business under the JaIl's of tile State of :Ke,v York with its oIliee and principal place of business located at 307 \Yest 728-122--65-- Complaint 61 F.

49th Street, New York Y. Said respondent, among other things 1ms been engaged and is presently engaged in the business of publishing and distributing various publications including magazines under copyrighted tlUes including "Ring . H.respondent's sales of publications during the calendar year 1960 exceeded two hundred fifty thousand dolhrs.

PAR. 2. Publications published by respondent aro distributed by respondent to customers through its national distributor, Publishers Distributing Corporation, hereinafter referred to as PDC. PDC has acted and is now acting as national distributor for the publications of several independent publishers, including respondent publisher. PDC, as national distributor of publications published by respondent and other independent publishers, has performed and is now performing variolls services for these publishers. Among the services performed and stil being performed by PDC for the benefit of these publishers are the taking of purchase orders and the distributing, billing and collecting for such publications from customers. PDC has also negotiated promotional arrangement.s with the retail customers of the publishers it. represents, on behalf of and with the knowledge and approval of said publishers, including respondent vublisher.

In its capflcity as nationa.l distributor for respondent in dealing with the customers of respondent, PDC served and is now serving as a conduit or intermediary for the sale, distribution and promotion of publications published by respondent.

PAR. 3. H,espondcnt, through its conduit or intermediary, PDC, has sold and distributed and now sells and c1istribntcs its publications in substnn6al quantities in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Clayton Act, as amended, to competing customers located t.throughout various States of the LTnHed States and in the District of Columbia. \R. 4. In the course and conduct of its business in commerce, respondent has paid or contracted for the payment of something of value to or for the benefit of some of its customers as compensation or in considera.tion for services or facili.ies furnished, or contracted to be furnished, by or through such customers in connection with the 1mndling, sale, or offering for sale of publications sold to t.hem by respondent. Such payments or allowances were not made available on proportionally equal terms to an other customers of respondent c.ornpeting in the distribution of such publications. PAH. 5. As an example of the practices alleged herein, respondent ha,s made payments or allowances to certain retail customers who operate chain retail outlets in ra.ilroad, airport and bus terminals, as ____ __ THE Re.W , IKC.

Decision and Order well as outlets located in hotels and offce buildings. Such payments or allowance were not afforded or otherwise made available on proportionally equal terms to all other customers (including drug chains grocery chains and other newsstands) competing with the favored customers in the sale and distribution of the publications of respondent publisher. Among the favored customers receiving payments in 1960 which were not offered to other competing customers in connection with the purchase and sale of respondent' s publications were: Appro:cimate Customers: Amount Received Union News Co., New York City, N.Y_--__- -------- $4 284. Greyhound Post Houses, Forest Park, Ill_ --------- 823. ABC Vending Corp., Long Island City, N. ----------- 150. Respondent made said payu1ents to Hs favored customers on the basis of individual negotiations. Among said favored customers such payments were not made on proportionally equal terms. PAR. 6. The acts and practices of respondent as alleged above are in violation of the provisions of subsection (d) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act: as amended.

DECISION AND ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondent named in the caption hereof with violation of subsection (d) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended, and tho respondent having been served with notice of said detennination and with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue together wi th a proposed fonn of order; and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter f1xecuted an agreement containing a consent order: a.n Rdmission by the respondent of all the jurisdiction".! facts set forth in the complaint to issue herein, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent that the law has been violated as set forth in such complaint nnd "Rivers 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.l findings and enters the following order:

1. Respondent The R.ing, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing 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 a.t iW71Yest 49th Street, in the city of Xew York, State of New York. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIOI\T DECISIONS Syllabus 01 F,'l'.C.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of tho respondent. ORD1m It i8 ordered That respondent The Ring, Inc., a corporation, its offcers, B1nployces, agents and representatives, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the distribution, sale or offering for sale of publications including magazines in commerce, as commerce" is defined in the amended Clayton Act, do fortlnvith cease and desist from:

Paying or contracting for tho payme,nt of an allo\Yance or anything of value to, or for the benefit of, flllJl cw::tomer as conlpensation or in consideration for any services or facilities furnished by or through such customer in connection with the hancalling, offering for sale, sale or distribution of publications including mng:l.zines published, sold or offered for sale by respondent, unless such payment. or consic1eriltion is afiil'matively oflerecl and otherwise made available on propOltionaJ1y equal terms to all of its other customers competing 'iith such favored customer in the distribution of such publ-intions including magaZll1es.

The word "customer" as used above shall be deemed to 11lean anyone who purchases from The Ring, Inc., acting either as principal or agent or from a distributor or wholesaler where such transaction with such purchaser is essentially a sa.le by such respondent, ftcting either as principal or agent.

It is f'UTther ordered That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a. report in writing setting forth in detail the ma.nller and form in which ithas complied with this order.

Ix THE IATTER OF BEHKLEY PUBLISHING CORPORATION CONSENT OlUIER, ETC., IN REGARD TO '11-11- ALLEGED VIOLATION or SEC. 2(d) OF THE CL.\ YTOX ACT Doc7,:et C 166. Complaint, JlIly 1962-Decision, JullJ , 1.92 Consent order requiring a XC\V York Cit:v publif3hcr of paperback hooks to cease discrimina tng' in price in Tiola tion of Sec. .2 (r1) of the Clayton Act by paying promotional allowances to certain retail customers-some of whom operated BERKLEY PVBLISHING CORP.

Complaint chain retail outlets in railroad, airport, and bus terminals, and outlets in hott'18 and oilce buildings, and others of w110m furnished services in COJlnec tion ,vitll the handling of respondent' s publications such as taking' purchase orders and distributing, lJiling, and col1ectilJg ";while not making such llayments available on vrovortionally equal tenns to their cOilvetitors, including drug' chcdliS, groecl'Y chains, and otller l1ewsstands. COl\(rL \IXT The Ii ederal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that the party respondent Hamed in the caption hereof and hereinafter more particllbr1y designated and described) has violated and is now violating the provisions of subsection (c1) of Section :2 of the Clayton Act (CS.C. Title Li, Sec. 13), as :unenc1ec1 by the Robinson-Patman Act hereby issues its complaint stat-ing its charges with respect there1:o as follo\'s:

PAH.\GILAI'n 1. Hesponclent Berkley Publishing Corporation is a corporation orgf\1ized and doing business under the Jaws of the State of Dcla\\':lr, T\ith its offce and princip tl place of lmsine,ss located at 15 East 26th St.reet e\Y York, X. Y. Said respondent, ftJl0ng other things: has bee,n engaged and is presently ellg lged in the business of publishing and di tributing va,rjous publicntions including paperback books under' copyrighted titles. nesponc1enfs tiaJes of such publica tions average three hundred fifty thousand copies per month. R. 2. Publications published by respondent arc dist.ributed by respondent to customers through its national distributor, Kable :fc\ys COlllpa11Y, he:' P111i1later refcrretl to as Kable. l\:able has acted and is now acting as national distributor 1'01' the publicat.ions of several independent publishers, including respondent publisher. J\:able, as nnt.iollitl distributor of publications published by respondent and other independent publishers, has performed and is now performing various services for these publishers. Among the services performed and still being performed by K ble for the benefit of thc$e puhji hers are the taking of purcha e orders fmc1 t.he distributing, billing lllH.l collecting for such publications from cllstOlners. Kable also has negotiated various promotional and display.y arnmgements \\"it,h the retail customers 01' such publishers, with the kn01yJeclgc and approval of such publishers, including said respondent. In its capacity as national distrilmtor for respondent in dealing with the custOlners of responde,nt., Kabic served and is now serving as a conduit or intennedia,ry for the saJe, distribution and promotion of publicntions published by respondent.

PAR. 3. llespondent, through its conduit or int.ennediflry, I a.ble has sold flnc1 clistrilmted and now sells anel distributes its publications _ Decision and Order 61 F.

in substantial quantities -in comme.rce, as "commerce" is defuled in the Clayton Act, as amended, to competing customers located throughout various States of the l7nitcd Sbtes and in the District of Columbia. PAR. 4. In the course and conduct of its business in commerce, respondent has paid or contracted for the payment of something of value to or for the benefit of some of its customers as compensation or in considenl,tioll for services or facilities furnished, or contracted to be furnished, by or through such customers in connection with the han. selling, sale, or offering for sale of publications sold to them by respondent. Such payments or allowances were not made available on proportionally equal terms to an other customers of respondent competing in the distribution of such publications. PAR. 5. As an example of the practices alleged herein, respondent has made pa,yments or allowances to certain retail customers who OpN erate drug chains, and to other retail customers who operate chain rebtil outlets located in railroad, airport and bus terminals, as "well as outlets located in hotels llnd oilice buildings. Such payments or allowances were not offered or othenvise made available on proportionlilly equal terms to all other" customers (including other drug chains and newsstands and grocery chains) competing with the fa,vored customers in t1w, sale a,ud distribution of the publications of respondent publisher. -,\.among the favored customers receiving payments in ID60, and during t.he first six months of 1961, which were not offered to other competing customers in connection with t.he purchase and sale of respondent's publication were:

Approximate Amou.nt Recdved nun Customer: 1960 (Jan.--u.n() Interstate Hosts, Los Angeles, Calif___ --u 8603. 92 $,161. H Fred IIarvey, Chicago, IIL___--u_-- 841. GG 230. 04 Greyhound Post Houses, Forest Park, Ill--_ 533. 7R 110. 84 Drug Fail' , "\Vasbington, D.C__ --_--n----_--_ 957. 39 424. Respondent made said pa.ymcnts to its favored customers on the basis of individual negotiations. Among said favored customers such payment.s were not made on proport.ionally equal terms. PAR. 6. The acts and practices of respondent as alleged above arb in violation of the provisions 01 suh:;ectioll (d) of SCGLion:2 of the Clayton Act, as amended.

DECISION AND ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondent named in the caption hereof with violation of subsection (d) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as llmended, and the BERKLEY PUBLISHL1\G CORP.

Decision and Order respondent h"ving been served with notice of s"id determination and with" copy of the compl"int the Conmlission intended to issue, together with" proposed form of order; and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an a.admission by the respondent of ,,11 the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to issue herein, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent that the law h"s been violated as set forth in such complaint and waivers and provisions as requested 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, ami enters tlm following order:

1. Respondent, Berkley Publishing Corporation, is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with its offce and principal place of business located at 15 East 26th Street, in the city of New York, State of New York.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent. ORDER It is Ol'dated That respondent Berkley Publishing Corporation, a corporation, its offcers, employees, agents and representatives, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the distribution, sale or offering for sale of publications including paperback books in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the amended Clayton Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

Paying or contracting for the payment of an allowance or anything of value to, or for the benefit of, any customer as compensation or in consideration for any services or facilities furnished by or through such customer in connection with the handling oliering for sale, sale or distribution of publications including paperback books published, sold or offered for sale by respondent unless such payment or consideration is atrrmativcJy olierec1 and otherwise made available on proportionally equal terms to all of its other customers competing with such favored customer in the distribution of such publications including- paperback books. The word "customer" as used above shall be deemed to mean anyone who purchases from Berkley Publishing Corporation, acting either FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISlm,,T Complaint 61 Ji' as principal or agent, or from a distributor or wholesaler where such transaction with such purchaser is essentially a sale by such respondent, acting either as principal or agent. I tis Inrther onle1'eI That the respondent herein shlelJ, within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, fie with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the ma1l1er and fonn in which it has complied with this order.

Ix THE 'L\' TEn. OJ.

REGE:'T GA IES, no., ET AL.

CONSENT OInJEH , J TC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATIQX OF THE FEm:RAL TRADE CO DIISSION ACT Docket C-1Ui. Complaint, July lD62-Dccision, July, 1962 Consent order requiring ffljatcd distributors of sporting goods nnd games in e'y York City to cease setting forth in catalog,lcs as customal'' retail prices, amounts in exce3sof usual sel1llg' prices in tile rack areas COIl" cerned; and failing" to disclose the forej ll origin of merchandise 1J;V sucll practices as sellng badminton sets comprised of various Hcms on "which the llalle of the foreign country of origin was set forth inconspicuously on their ,,,rapl)ings and "dth only the address of an \american1 company on the outer container.

CO:\IPLAIXT Pursuant to the provisions of the Fec1enll Trade Commission Act and by virtue of ihe authority vested in it by said Ad, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Hegent Games, Inc. fl, corpoJ'fltion, Popnlar Sports, Inc., a corporation, and Irving JA1owner and.Joseph Lipman, individually and as copartners trflding as Uegent Sports Co. and as oHicers of oaeh of said corporations, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Act and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by itin respect there.of "\"\oulc1 be in the public interest, hereby i sues its complaint tating its cha.rges in that respect as follows: .\R\Gll- H 1. Respondent Hegent Games, Inc. , is a. corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with .its principal offce fl1d place of business iocated at 131 Varick Street, in the city of New York, Shlte of ew York.

Hesponclent Popular Sports, Inc., is a. corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the lrlws of the State of New Yark. Its address is the same as that of the afore stated corporate respondent.

___ , REGENT GAMES) I , ET AL.

Complaint Respondents Irving Lawner and Joseph Lipman are individuals and are copartners, trading as Regent SpOlis Co., and arc offcers of each of the aforestated corporate respondents. They formulate direct and control the acts and practices of each of the corporate respondents, including the acts and practices hereinafter set forth. Their address is the same as that of the "forestated corporate respondents.

PAR. 2. Respondents arc now, and for some time last past have been engaged in the advertising, offering for sale, sale and distribution of sporting goods and g lines to retailers for resale to the public. PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of the.ir business, respondents now cause, and for some bme last past have caused, their said products when sold, to be shippccl from their place of business in the State of ow York to purchasers thereof located in various other states of the -enited States and in the District of Columbia, and maintain, and at all times mentioned herein have maintained, a substantial course of trade in said products in commerce, as "commerce ' is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

\R. 4,. In the COurse and condud of their business as aforesaid respondents, for the purpose of inducing the purchase of their said products, have caused it caialogue to be published and distributed to purchasers of their said products. Said catalogue describes the numerous articles of merchandise ollered for sale by respondents, and in connection therewith sets forth a price Hll0lUlt for each of the sa.id articles of merchandise.

Typical and illustrative of such listings are the following: Hegent Badminton Set-- - P 8 --- - 83.

CC21 Croquet Set-- TTSS Table Tennis Scl-- - $7.45 BG41 Fielders' Glove-- -- 810.40 Four-Player Badminton Sel --- S1'37 ------ $10.40 Imprinted on a card contained in said crltalog are the '"ords Confidential Discount ;r otiee For Distributors (ivholesale) an prices listed in this catalog subject to 50% and 10% discount. \R. 5. Through the use of the aforesaid statements and others similar thereto but not specifically set out herein, respondents have represented, directly or indirect1:y, that the aforestated price amounts and the other price amounts set out in their said catalogue -were the prices at which the merclwnclise referred to was usually and customarily sold at retail in all of the trade areas in which said articles of merchandise were offered for sale.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIO:\ DECISIONS Complaint 61 F.

PAn. 6. In truth and in fact, the saiel price amounts \Were not the prices at which the merchandise referred to was usually and customarily sold at retail in aJl of the trade areas where said altieles of merchandise were sold, but were in excess of the price or prices at which the merchandise was generally sold in said trade areas. The aforesaid statements and representations were, therefore, false, misleading and deceptive.

PAR 7. Certain of respondents' badminton sets are packaged in COll tainers which in large and conspicllolls letters set forth the following: Dehne Badminton Set by Popular Sports Company, New Yorl, N.

Reg' ent Badminton Set. Regent Sports Company, Kew York, KY.

Each of the badminton sets is comprised of a nl1l1ber of individual "items which are contained in the box. The country of origin of the various pieces is et forth in small and inconspicuous lettering on the articles or their wrappings. Purchasers of said badminton sets can determine the c.count.ry of origin only by opening the box and carefully px111nining each article.

PAR. 8. Through the use of the aforesaid statements on the exterior of the containers in which the said badminton sets are sold, respondents have affrmatively represGntec1 that said badminton sets are manufactured in the 1)nitecl States of America. Furthermore the name of the country of origin imprinted in srnnJJ and inconspicuous letters and concealed in the ma,nner aforesaid is wholly and c.ompleteJy inadequate to advise or apprise purchasers of the true country of origin of the said badminton sets.

PAR. 9. The aforestatecl representation that said badminton sets a.re of domestic origin is false, misleading and clec.eptivc. fany of the component parts of said sets are manufactured in various foreign countries.

PAR. 10. 1Vhen merclumdise, including sporting goods and games, is offered for sa.le to the purchasing public and such merchandise is not marked or is not adequately ma.rked showing that it is of foreign origin, such pllrchasing public understands and believes that such Inercha,ndise is of domestic origin, a fact of Vi'which t.he Commission takes offcial notice.

PAH. 11. A substantial portion of the purchasing public prefers InerchancTise, including sporting goods and games, that is manufac- .tllred in the 1Tniter1 Statos over such merchandise that is manufactured REGE TT GAMES ET AL.

Decision and Order ;n fore;gn countries of which fact the Commission also takes offcial notice.

PAR. 12. In the conduct of their business, at an times mentioned herein, respondents have been in substantial competition, in commerce with corporations, firms and individuals ;n the salo of sporting goods and games of the same general kind and nature as those sold by respondents.

PAR. 13. By the aforesaid practices respondents place in the hands of retailers and dealers the means and instrumentalities by and through which they may mislead and deceive the public as to the country of origin and usual and regular retail seUing price of said products. PAR. 14. The use by respondents of the aforesaid false, misleading fllld deceptive statements, representations and practices has had, and now has, the capacity and t.enllcncy to mislead lllcmbers of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that sa.;d 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.

PAR. 15. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein aUeged, were and are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents' competitors and constituted, and now constitute, unfair methods of competition in commerce and l1nfn,-r and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Tra.de Commission Act.

DECISIO 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 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 the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to issue herein, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admssion by respondents that the law has been violated as set forth in such complaint, and waive.rs and provisions as required by the Commission s rules; and The Commission, ha.ving considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agree- FEDERAL TRADE COM:\fISSION DECIsrm'r5 Decision and Order 61 F. 'l' ment, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent., Regent Games, Inc., is a corporation organized existing and doing business lUlCleI' and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 131 Varick Street, in the city of ew Yark, State of New York.

Respondent Popular Sports, Inc., is a corporation organized, exist ing and doing business under and by virtue of the la;ws of the State of New York, ,,'ith its offce and principal place of business located at the above stated address. Respondents Irving Lawner and Joseph Liprnan a.re inclividunJs, and are copartners, trading as Hegent Sports Co., and are offcers of each of the aforestated corporate respondents and the,ir address is the same as that, of the aforestated corporate respondents.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject mattcl' of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

GIilER It is oJ'leTed That respondents Regent Games, Inc., a corporation and its offce1's, and Popular Sports, lnc. a, corporation, and its offcers, and Irving Lawner and Joseph I..ipman, individually and as copartners trading as Regent Sports Co. and as offcers of each of said corporatjons and respondents' representatives, agents, and employees, directly or through a,ny corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of sporting goods games or a,ny other articles of merchandise, in commel'ce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade COl1l1ission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. R.representing, directly or by implication, that any amount is the usual a.nd customary price of rne1'chandise in the trade area or areas where the representations arc made when it is in excess of the generally prcvaiJing price or prices at which said merchandise is sold in said trade area or areas. 2. R.eprcsenting, directly or indirectly, in advertising or in labeling that products manufactured in any foreign country:? are manufactured in the 'United Stales.

3. Offering for sale or selling products ,which are, in ,yho10 or in snbstfmtial part, of foreign origin, Iyithout clearly and conspicuously disclosing on such products the country 01' origin tlwreo:f, and if the products are enclosed in a package or carton clearly and conspicuously disclosing on such package or carton MORRIS GHEE .mAUyl & Eno.

Complaint that all or a part of the contents thereof arc imported ,md that the country of origin of foreign made products is set forth on each said product.

4. Furnishing or otherwise placing in the hands of retailers or dealers in said products the means and instrumentalities by and through \Which they may mislead or deceive the pubhc in the manner or as to the things hereinabo' e prohibited. It is fu.rther 01'lel' That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, iile with the COlnmission a report in writing setting forth in detail t.he manner and form in which they have complied with this order. Ix THE IAT1'En OF MORIUS GREENBAL-:f ET AL. TRADING AS MORRIS GREEXBAIDI &; BRO.

COXSEST Order 1:1'0. IX REG.\RD TO Tile ALLEGED VIOL\Tlon OF THE 1"EDERAL TRADE OO DIISSION "\XD Tile FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-16S. Com-plaint, July 19U2-IJccf8ion, JHly 13. 1f)fJ2 CUllscnt order requiring Ke,v York Cit:r furriers to cease violating the Fur l'l" oducts Labeling Ad by failing to show on labels tile true animal 11:111C fur used in a fur product and the idcn1ificntion of 1he manufacturer. etc. ; failng to sbuw on lfbcls and invoices when fur was artificially colored; invoicing as natural, furs ,,-bielJ were bleached, (1 e(!, etc.. add fnrllislJillg false guaranties that certain uf their fur proclucts 'Tcre not mi brm1de(1. COJIPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and t.he Fur Products Lflbeling Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission hflving l'eflson to believe that :Morris Greenbaum, Jacob Greenb::Hun and Nathan Greenbaum, individually and as copartners trading as )'iorris Green baum & Bro., hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the R.uks nncl Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof \' i'uld be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint st.ating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARACTI.\PI-I 1. H.respondents :l\orris Greenbaum, Jacob Greenb::mm and ::athan Greenbaum arc individuals and copartners, trading as FEDERAL TRADE CO"L"nSSIOX DECISIO:\S Complaint 61 F.'I'.

:Morris Greenbc11n & Bro., with their offce and principal place of business located at 330 Seventh Avenlle New York, N. PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondents have been and are 11mv engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in the manufacture for 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 manufactured for sale, sold, advertised offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole Or in palt of fur which had been shipped and received in commerce a,s the terms "commerce, "fur" and " fur prod 4 uct" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 3. Cmtain of said fur products were misbranded or otherwise falsely or deceptively labeled in that said fur products were labeled to show that tho fur contained therein was natural when in fact such fur was bleached, dyed or otherwise Rl'tificial1y colored, in violation of Section 4 (1) ofthe Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 4. Cmtain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were not labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Rcgulations promulgated thereunder. 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 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 name, or other identification issued and registered by the Commission of one or lnore of the persons who manufactured such fur product for introduction into commerce introduced it into commerce, sold it in COllll1erce, advertised or offered it for saJe, in commerce, or transported or distributed it in commerce. PAn. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that said fur products v;ere invoiced to show that the fur contained therein was natural when in fact such fur was bleached dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that they were not invoiced as required under the provisions of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the R.ules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder.

, MORRIS GHEEXBAFM: & BRO.

Decision and Order Among such falsely and decept.ively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, ,were invoices pertaining to such fur products which failed to disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or orthel'wise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

P AU. 7. The respondents furnished false guaranties that certain of their fur products "were not misbranded, falsely invoiced or falsely advertised, when respondents in furnishing such guaranties had reason to believe that the fur products so falsely guaranteed would be introduced, sold, transported or distribut.ed, in commerce, in violation of Section 10 (b) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAn. 8. 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 and unfair methods of competition in commerce lmder the Federal Trade Commission Act. DECJSIOX A:t"' 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 Could11ission intended to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed a.n agreement cont.aining a consent order, an admission by the respondents of a11 the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to issue herein, a st.atement 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 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. Respondents )lorris Greenbaum, Jacob Greenbaum and Nathan Greenbaum Hre individual.1s and copart.ners, trading as 1\lorris GreenbalUn &; Bro. with their offce and principal1 place of business located at 330 Seventh Avenue, Xew York, :N.

, :

FEDERAL TRADE COM IISSION DECISIONS Decision and Order 61 F.

z. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of t.his proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered That respondents )1:o1'1'i8 Greenbaum, Jacob Greenbaum and athan Greenbaum, individually and as copartners trading a.s Thforris Greenbaum & Bro. or under any other trade name, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, or manufa,cture for introduction, into commerce, or the sale, fldvertising or offering for sale, in c01lmel'ce or the transportation or distribution in commerce of any fur product; or in connection with the sale, manufacture for sale, advertising, offering for sale, tra.nsportation or dis. tribution, of any fur product 'which has been made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce as "commerce fur'i and " fur product" tlre defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. ::lisbranding fur products by:

A. Representing directly or by implicat.ion on labels that tlle fur contained in fur products is nf1tural, 'iyhen such is not. the fact.

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

2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Represenhng directly or by implication on invoices that the fur contained in fur products is natural, when such is not the fact.

n. FtLiling to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of ihe Fur Products Labcling Act.

3. Furnishing a false guaranty that any fur product is not 11isbran(lec1 , fah:ely inyoicec1 or f;dsely achertisetl Iyhen the rc ponc1e.lts hln-e reason to belie.ve that Sllch fur product 1lf1Y be introduced, sold, trf1l1sporte(1 or distributed in eonnnerce. It is fnt'hel ordered That the respondent herein shall, 'iyithin sixty (60) clays after service upon them of this order, fie with the Commission a report in 'iriting sett.ing forth in detail the 11&1111er and form in which they have cOTnplied wit.h this order. LADY CAROL DRESSES , INC. , ET AL.

Complaint IN "HE MATT LADY CAHOL DRESSES, IJ'C., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FED ERAL TRADE C01\nnssrox AND THE FLAMMABLE FABRICS ACTS Docket 0-169. Cmnplaint, July 1962-Dccision, July, 1.92 Consent order requiring New York City manufacturers of wealing apparel to cease violating the Flammable Fabrics Act by seIJng in commerce dresses which were so highly flammable as to be dangerous when worn. COMPLAIX' Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade COllllnission Act and the Flammable Fabrics Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Lady Carol Dresses, Inc., a corporation, and Jack Pearlstein, individually and as an offcer of saiel corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Act.'3 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Flammable Fabrics Act., a.nd it appearing to the Commission t.hat a. proceeding by it in respect thereof \YOulc1 be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint, stating its charges in that respect as fal1mvs: P ARAGHAPII 1. R.respondent Lady Carol Dresses, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Yark.

Individual respondent Jack Pearlstein is President of the corporate respondent and formulates, directs and c.ontrals the acts, practices and policies of said corporate respondent, including those hereina-after set forth.

R.respondents are mrmufacturers of articles of wearing apparel, including dresses, with their offce and principal place of business located at 501 Seventh Avenue, Xew York, X.

PAR. 2. Respondents, subsequent to .July 1, 1954, the effective date of the Flammable Fabrics Act, have manufactured for sale, sold and offered for sale, in commerce; have imported into the United States; and have introciueed, delivered for introduction, transported and caused to be transported, in commerce; and have transported and caused to be tmnsported for the purpose of sale or delivery after sale in eomrneree; as "commerce" is defined in the Flammable Fabrics --\ct articles of wearing apparel, as the term " article of wearing H-ppareI" is de.fined therein, which artieJes of wearing apparel were, under Sec- 72S-122-(j3 , FEDERAL TRADE COMMSSION DECISIONS Decision and Order 61 F.

tion 4 or the Flammable Fabrics Act, as amended, so highly flammable as to be dangerous when worn by individuals. Among the articles of wearing apparel mentioned above were dresses.

PAH. 3. Respondents, subsequent to July 1 , 1D54, the effective date of the Flammable Fabrics Act, have manufactured for sale, sold and offered for sale, articles of wcarin,: apparel.l made of fabric which was under Section 4 of the Act, as amended, so highly flammable as to be dangerous when worn by individuals, and which fabric had been shipped and received in commerce as the terms " article of ,vearing a.ppareF' fabrid' and "commerce" are defined in the Flammable Fab6cs Act.

Among the articles of ,,- a.ring apparel mentioned above were dresses.

PAR. 4. Respondents, subsequent to July 1, 1%4, have rurnished their customers with a guaranty -with respect to the articles of wearing apparel, mentioned in paragraphs :2 and 3 hereof, to the cited that reasonable and representative te::ts made under the procedures provided in Section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act, as amended, and the llules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, show that said articles of ",ycaring apparel arc not, in the form delivered hy respondents, so highly flammable under the provisions of the Flammable Fabrics Act as to be dangerous when worn by inc1ivic1uftls. There ",yas reason for respondents to believe that the articles of wearing apparel covered by such guaranty migllt be introclucecl sold, or transported 111 commerce.

Sa,ic1 guaranty was false in that with respect to said articles of ",,"caring apparel, reasonable and representative tests had not been made. \H. 5. The acts and practices of respondents herein alleged ,were and are in violation or the Flammable Fabrics Act and the Rules and Regnlati.ons promulgated thereunder and as such 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.

IhCIslOX AXD Onder:' The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the re.spot1clents named in the ea.ption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Flammftble, Fabrics , and the re.spondents having bee.n served with notice of said determination an(l with a copy of the eompbint the Commission intended to issue together ",with a pl'opm::p(l furm of order: and LADY CAROL DRESSES, INC. , ET AL.

Decision and Order The respondent.s and counsel for the Commission h(1 ving thereafter executed an agrcement containing a consent order, an admission by the mspondents of all the jurisdictiomd facts set forth in the complaint to issuehe.rein, n statement that the signing of said .igreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents thn;t the law luts been violated as set -forth in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission rules; and The Commission, hn ving considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement ma,kes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order :

1. Respondent., Lady Carol Dresse:j, Inc. , is corporation organized exist.ing and doing business under find by virtue of the In 'ys of the State of York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 501 SCYPllth AvemH' in the city of Ne\i, York, State of Kt' \Y York.

Respondent J11Ck Pearlstein is an omcer of said corporation and his address is the S,lJlC as that of saiel c.orporation. 2. The Federa.l Trade Commission has jurisdic.tion of the subject Inatter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER 1 t -is ordered That respondents Lady Carol Dresses, Inc. , a corporation, and its oiIcers, and Jack Pearlstein, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, diredly or through any corporate or other device, do fortlnvith cease and desist from:

1. (a) Importing into the United States; or (b) :Jlanufact.uring for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing, delivering for introduction, transporting or causing to be transported, in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in t.he Flammable Fabrics Act; or ( c) Transporting or causing to be transported, for the purpose of sale or delivery after sale in commerce; any article of wearing apparel which, under the provisions of Section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act, as amended, is so highly flammable as to be dangerous when "Worn by individuals. 2. AIanl1facturing for sale, selling or offering for sale any article of wearing apparel made of fabric, which fabric has been shipped or received in commerce, and 'Thich, under Section 4 of the Flam- Complaint 61 F.

mable Fabrics Act as amended, is so highly flammable as to be dangerous when worn by indi\7iduals.

3. Furnishing to any person a gua.ranty with respect to any article of wearing apparel which respondents, or any of them have reason to believe may be introduced, sold or transported in commerce, which gl1an1nty represents, contrary to fact, that rea. son able and representative tests made under the procedures pro. vided in Section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act, as amended, and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, show and will show that the article of wearing apparel, or the fabric used or contained therein, covered by the guaranty, is not, in the form delivered or to be delivered by the guarantor, so highly flammable under the prov:isions of the Flammable Fabrics Act as to be dangerous when worn by individuals, provided, however, that this prohibition shall not be applicable to a guaranty fumished on the basis of, and in reliance upon, a guaranty to the same effect received by respondents in good faith signed by and containing the name and address of the person by whom the article of wearing apparel or fabric was manufactured or from whom it was received. It is jurtheT ordered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this oreler, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied wit.h this order.