Edgar Gevirtz

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

IN THE J\1.ATTEH OF EDGAR GEVIRTZ TRADING AS REGAL FURS ORDER, ETC. , IX REG.\RD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRDE CO::BIISSIOX AND Tile FIT1 PRODUCTS LAnELI G ACTS Docket 146. Complaint, Oct. 1961"" Decision, July, 1.962 Order requiring a Los An eles furrier to cease violating the Fur ProaUds Labeling Act by failing to disclose the Hames of animals producing furs on labels and invoices and in advertising; failng to set forth on labels the name of the manufacturer, etc. ; failng to disclose on invoices l,..hen fur was dyed, ano invoicing "Japanese Mink" as "mink" ; by advertising which falsely represented that fur prices were "at actual cost" , that he owned a factory producing his fur products, that his products were guar. anteed, and that " sale prices" attached to products were reduced from usual prices; by failng to maintain adequate records as a basis for pricing claims; and by failng ill other respects to comply with l'eqnirement. the Act.

C01lPLA IXT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade, Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling t('t. nnrl by \- il'tne of the ilui:llority vested in it by said \.('t,, the Federn! Trade ('()II)lli,"sion Jwving re;\son to believe that Edgar C1evirtz, an inclividnal jr:H1ing as Hc'gal :Fllrs hereinafter referred to as responc1tnt has viol,lted the provisions of sf1icl Acts and the Hules and Beglllations pl'olHlllgatel1uucler the Fur Products Labeling Act, an(l it appearing to the COllrnission that a proceeding b:v it in respect thereof \youlc1 be jrj the public lnterest hereby issue,s its complaint stating its charges in tllat respect as. follows:

*As ameIJded January 15, 19-2.

REGAL F1:RS Complaint \RAGRAl'H 1. Edgar Gevil'tz is an individual trading its Regal Furs with his ofiice and priuGipnl place of Jmsillpss Jocated at 623 W cst 7th Street, Los Angeles, Calif.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the efIeetive date of the Fur Products Labeling Act of August 8, 1952, respondent has been and is now engaged in the introduction into commerce and in the sale, advertising, and offering for sale in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution in commerce at fur products: and has sold, ndvert.isec1 , oil'cred for saJe, transported and distributed fur products which llavC been made in whole or in part of fur which lULd been shipped and received in commcree, as the t01'11S C0111101'ce, "fur" and "fur product" are defined in thc Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 3. Certain of .said fur products "'ere misbranded in that they ",ere falsely and deceptively labeled in that labels containing fictitious prices were a!!xed to such fur products in violation of Section 4 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products with labels which: (1) Contained a purported "sale price, thereby falsely ,md deceptively representing directly or by implication that the prices of such fur products were reduced from the prices at which respondent regularly and usual)Jy sold such fur product.s in the recent regl11nr course of business.

(2) Contained a sale price which was, in fact, fictitious in that such price was in excess of the price at which such fur products were HctuaJly sold.

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbrfl.ncled in that they "'ere not labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products with labels which failed to disclose:

1. The name or names (as sct forth in the Fur Products )I flIne Guide) of the animal or animals that produced the fur; and 2. Thc name or other identification issued a,ncl registered by the Commission, of one or more of the persons who manufacture such fur product ior introduction into commerce, introduce it into cOIruneree sell it in commerce, advertise or oirer it for sale in eomme.rce, or transport or distribute it in commerce.

PAIL 5. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act, in that they ",ere not labeled in accordance ,with the Rules and Regula60ns promulgated t.hereunder in the following respects FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIO:\T DECISIO)rS Complaint 61 F.

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

2. Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules ,md Regulations promulgated thereunder was not completely set out on one side of labels, in violation of Rule 29(a) of said Rules and Regulations; and 3. Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in handwriting on labels in violation of Rule 29 (b) of said Rules and ReguhLtions.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by respondent, in that they 'were not invoiced as required by Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and fann prescribed by the Rules and R.eglliations promulgated t.hereunder.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products: but not limited thereto, were invoices perta.ining to sneh Jur products Tlhich fail cd to disclose:

1. Tho name or names (as set fort.h in the Fur Products Name Guide) of the animal or animals that produced the fur; 2. Tha.t the fur cont.ained in the fur products was dyed when such ",vas the fact.

\H. 7. Certain of said fur products \were falsely and deceptively jnvoiced with respect to the name of thc an ima.l that produced the fur from which the fur product had been manufactured, in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. :bnong such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur procluds bnt not limited thereto, we.re fur products which '181'e invoiced as being mink": when they were in fact "Ja.panese mink" PAR 8. Certain of said fur products ,ycre falsely and deceptively ipvoiced, in violation of the Fur Products Labe.ling Act, in that they were not invoiced in accordance with the H.ules a.nd Regulat.ions p1'omulgated tl1erellncler in the following respects: 1. Information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur l' roduets La,beling Act and t.he Hules and Regulatj-;l1s promulgated thereunder was set forth in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule. 4 of said Hules nc1 Regulations; and 2. Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Hule.lO of .'oid Iinles ond HeguJat ions. RE GAL FURS Complaint PAR. 9. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised, in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act, in that respondent caused the dissemination in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in said Act, of certain newspaper advertisements, concerning said products, which were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(a) of the said Act, and the Hules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder, which advertisements were intended to aiel, promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of said fnr products.

Among such a.advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondent which appeared in the Los Angeles Times, a newspaper published in Los Angeles, California., having a wide circulation in California and in other States (If the United States. By means of said advertisements and others of simi lar import a.nd meaning, not specifically referred to herein, respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products, in that said advertisements: 1. Failed to disclose the name or names (as set forth in the Fur Products X ame Guide) of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product, iu violation of Section 5(a) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Represented prices of fur products to be "at actual cost" when such was not the fact, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and 3tule 44(a) of said Hules and Hcg-ulations. 3. Represented, directly or by implication, that respondent owned 01' operated a factory producing fur products sold by him, when such was not, the fact, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

4. Hepresented, directly or by implication, that fur products were guaranteed without disclosing the nature and extent of the gua,rantee or the manner and fonll in \which the gua.rantor would perform thereunder, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 10. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in that labels containing fictitious prices were affxed such fur products. Among such falsely and deceptively advertised fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products with labels which:

(1) Contained a purported "sale price, thereby falsely and deceptively representing direct.1y or by implica60n that the prices of such fur products were reduced from the prices at which respondent regularly and usual,lly sold such fur products in the recent regular courso' of business, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) ofthe Fur Products Label- ;

FEDERAL TRADE CO:\IMISSIOX DECISIO Initial Decision 61 F.'.r. iug Act and Rule. .H- of the R.uses and Hegl11ations promulgated thereunder.r.

(2) Contained a sale price \yhieh was, in fart, lictitious in that such price was in e.xcess of the price at ' which such fur products were actually sold, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act: PAIL 11. In fl(lvcrtising fur products for sale, ns afores,licl, respondent made pricing claims anc1rep1'esentations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (0) and (d) of I-ule+4 of the Hegulationsunder the Fur Produeis Labeling A.ct. Respondent in making such claims and representations failed to maintain fun and acleqnatc records disclosing the facts upon which such pricing claims and re.presentations were based in violation of Rule +4(0) of the ,,,id Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 12. The nJoresaid nets and practices of reSpOJld(,llt a:- herein alleged, arc in viobtion of the Fur Proclncts Lnhel1ug Act and the Hules and Regulations promulgated thel'elllclel' and constitute unfair a.nd dccepti\Tc acts nncl practices in commerce nuder the Feelcral Trade Commission 'Act.

;111' Robert W. Lowthiun and 1111'. Euqcne 11. ti.(tylwi' supporting the complaint.

Hertzberg d' Gaetz by Mr, Hrli'i80"/ 11'. Jled.sbny, of Los Angeles, Calif., for respondent.

IXITJAL DECISION BY RAY::fOXD J . LYKCH , I-IE-\.RIxn EXA:\flXEH The Federal Trade Commission issllcd the. compln,int against the respondent on October 12, 1961. On Xovember 6 laGl, counsel supporting -the complaint filed it motion with the examiner to Hmend the complaint. Copy of the motion was servec111pon l'c::pondent "'\\ho failed to file a reply thereto and on J Hnl/firy 13 , 1 HG2, the examiner issued an order amending the, complaint ns l'e.que tecl by counsel supporting the complaint. Respondent filed an i1ns"\\.e1' to the, amended complaint, and hearings "\yC1'c he.ld on February 1:2 and 1:-3, 1962, in Los Angeles, California.

The anwnded complaint illlegcd in snb hllce that the respondent Edgar GEwirtz trading as Hegal Furs viola.ted certain provisions of the Fill' Products Ln beling Act and certain of the, Hllles a,nd Hegulabons promulgat.ed thereunder. Responclen(s answer to the amended complaint admitted and denied certa.in of the allegations set forth therein.

This plo ecding is before the hearillg eXiLminer for final consideration upon the complaint as amended, ans"\H' , testimony and other.r \, REGAL Furs Initial Decision 'evidence, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions filed by counsel for respondent and by counsel supporting the complaint. Consideration has been given to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions submitted by both parties, n.nd a11 proposed findings of fiLct and conclusions not hereinafter specifically found or COl1Chlded are rejected !LIlcl the hearing examiner, having considered the entire record herein, makes the following findings of fact, conclusions drawn t.therefrom nnd issues the follO'ving orde.r: FINDI GS Of' F . 'lct 1. ResponclcJlt Edgar Gevirtz is an individual trading as Regal Furs with his office ami principal place of business located at 623 West 7th Street, Los Angeles, Calif. This fact is mlmitted by respondent jn his a.nswer to the amended complaint.

. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August. D, 1952, respondent lUlsbpen and is 11mv engaged in the introduction into commerce and in the sale, act\'ertising, and offering for sale in commerce, and in the trfmspor'ation and distribution in commerce, of fur prQ(lncts; and hns sold, advertise, , offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products "which Jlil.C been made in whole or in part, of fur which has oeen E-'hipped and received in commerce, as the terms ';commerce fur" and ;'fur j)roclllcf) arc defined in the Fur Products Labe.ling .. ct. Respondent nclmitj eel that he had been and was presently engaged in the, fur business an(l that he realized t.he existence of the Fur Products Labeling ..\.ct and that in the business jn ",,,which he was engaged he With subject- to the. provisions that Act. The record shows. and the examiner find, t.hat the respondent ac1yertised 1 "fur prorhlets \ as 1'110 term used in the Act, in both the Los Angeles T'times a.nd the J-Jerald Express newspapers that have -interstate eil'cnlation.

3. Certain of said fur proclucts,, ere -:m:ishranded in that they were falsely and deceptive.!)' labeled in that lobels containing fictitious prices were nffxec1 to such fur products in violation of Sectjon 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto \Were fur products with labels which: (A) Contained a. purported "sale price, thereby falsely and deceptively representing directly or by jmplica.tion that t.he prices of such fur products were reduced from t.he prices at wl)jch respondent regularly and usually sold such fur products in t.he recent. regular course of business.

Commissioll €xJJJbits 1 through 2.1 were IHlvertisemuJts placed in tJJe LOl; Angeles TjDJCS and Commission exhibit uS is Iln exhibit of an fuivel't!seJJent plllt:cd in the Herald )8xpreF;R. See Alol.ton s big.. et al. v. FTO, 2813 F. 2tl, 158. FEDERAL TRADE CO ISSIOK DECISIONS Initial Decision 61 F, (B) Contained a sale price which was in fact fictitious, in that the sale price" represented the price which the respondent regularly used in sellng his fur products, Respondent had a dual ticket method of operating, according to the testimony of the Commission witness Anderson, One label (regular label) contained two coded items, (1) a letter code which was the cost of the garment, (2) a numerical code of seven digits which was explained as fonows: Disregard the first two and the last two digits and the remaining three digits are the usual retail sening price" of the garment, (R. 69, 70) The other ticket affxed to the fur garment was a "special sale" tag, (eX 28 30) These tags were red, on which was written the words "Special sale, under which were two white boxes, In the upper box were the words "Regular price" and the lower box the words "Sale price Anderson testified that of the many fur products he examined there was no writing in the box marked "Regular price" however in all cases the "sale price" box was fined in with a price mark which, according to the uncontroverted testimony of the witness Anderson, was identical to the coded "retail scning price The "sale price" set forth on the tickets of some 59 "fur products (CX 31) examined by the witness Anderson was in truth and in fact fictitious because in al1 cases the "usual retail selling price" of the garment was the same as the "special sale price . The respondent' explanation of the type operation he engaged in is set forth at page 216 of the record:

In onr type of operation, we try to get the ticket price that we put on the garment. In order for us to stay in business, we try to get that price; but competition being as keen as it is, if a customer comes in my store and ,,'alks ont because she thinks it is cheaper elsewhere and is the same quality, then I certainly am gojng to sell it for less money, because my operation depends on volume selling. The fact of the matter is that " special sale at actual cost" meant nothing to the respondent but a gimmick to bring prospective customers into his place of business where if a sale were made it would be made at respondent's regular retail sale price or at a, bartered price arrived at by the respondent according to what the customers would pay. There was no " special sale" price nor were there any "at actual cost" sales. These terms ,yore llsed by the respondent in advertising fur products merely as "sucker bait" to bring in the un wary customers who had two choices: (1) buy at the respondent' s regular price, which they were led to believe was a bargain, or (2) hagg1e with the respondent until a price was agreed upon so that respondent ,yolud not lose the sale, REGAL FURS Initial Decision 4. Certain 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. Among such misbranded fur products but not limited thereto, were fur products which labels failed to disclose:

A. The name or names (as set forth in the .Fur Products Name Guide) of the animal or animals that produced the fur; and B. The name or other identification issued and registered by the Commission of one or 11101'8 of the persons who manufa.cture such fur product for introduction into commerce, sell it in conuerce, advertise it or oiTer it for sale in commerce, or transport or distribute it in commerce.

Commission Exhibits 48, 49, and 52 are label facsimiles introduced into evidence and, according to the testimony of the Commission witllEBS Anderson, the information on these three documents is insufficient in the following respects:

CX 48 The label does not contain the name of any animal, any fur bearing animal, as such animal is found in the Fur Products ame Guide.

ex 49-A part of the information appears in handwritingregistered identification number appears on the label. CX 52- part of the infon1motion is in handwriting. )f on-required information is mingled with required information. The tag does not contain a registered identification number. The only explanation presented by the respondent in this regard was that errors are bowld to occur when you deal with so many garments. Respondent's explanation was not convincing and, in addition, the witness Anderson stated that the exhibits referred to were but a few examples of the many errors he found during his investigation of the respondent's business.

5. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the .Fur Products Labeling Act, in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in he following respects:

A. Information required under Section 4(2) of the .Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not completely set out on one side of the labels (CX 54), in violation of Rule 29 (a) of said Rules and Reb'l1ations; and B. Information required under Section 4(2) of the .Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in handwriting on Jabels (CX' s 47, 49 52 and 55), in violation of Rule 29 (b) of said Rules and Regulations. FEDERAL TRADE CO:\IMISSIO -' DECISIONS Initial Decision 61 F.

6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by thp respondent in that they were not invoiced as required by Section ;,(1,) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and furm prescribed by the Eulcs and Eegulations promulgated thereunder.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were invoices pertaining to such fur products which failed to disclose:

A. The na,me or names (as set forth in the Fur Products N aJ1u Guide) of the animal or animals that produced the fur; Commission Exhibits 25 , 60, 65 and 66.

B. That the fur contained in the fur products was dyed when such was the fact. Commission Exhibit 26 is an invoice that bils to disclose that the fur product was dyed when such was the fact. :'II'. Kaufman, a fur expert, testified for the Commission (R 44, .15), that the fur pI'oduct covered by Commission Exhibit 26 was in fact a dyed fur product. Re,spondent. failed to disclose thi:-; inf01111ation on Ow Invoice.

7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced with respect to the name of the animal that produced the fur from \Which the fur product had been manufactured, in violation or Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Commission Exhibit 25 is nn invoice covering a fur product that \Vas identified as mink" when, in truth and in fact, the fur product sold by respondent was a " Japanese l\link" fur product. Jiink is of the genus-species l\1ustc1a Vison and :Mustc1a Llltreo1a, whereas .Japanese 1\link is of the genus- species Illstela Hatsi. (Fur Products Name Guic1c) 8. Certain of said fur products were felse1y and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Lllbeling Act, jn that they were not invoiced in ac.cordance with the R.nles and Regulations promulga.ted thereunder in the following respect: Informa6on required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Heg-ulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in abbreviated form in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Eegulations. (CX's 59, 61 , 62, ()4 and (5) Respondent admitted the def-iciencies in the above referred to exhibits but contends that tbcy "\ye.re lUlintentional. The Commission has already ruled on this issue In the Jlattel' of Samuel A. J/ann' is ClJU"l Oompany (Docket No. 7062) "here the Commi,sion stated: In a proceeding for violation of the Fur Act, H is not necessary to show that a respondent has knon'ingly failed to comply \with the requirements of the Act or the Rules and Regulations promnlgated therf"nndcr or that he intended to deceive REGAL FURS Initial Decision the public. It is also unnecessary to establish that any existence of misbranding, false invoicing or Inisrepresentation in advertising resulted in deception of the public, nor is it necessary to show that such a practice has t.he capacity and tendency to deceive tbe public.

This opinion was affrmed hy the United St:ltes Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a decision rendered August 1061. Samuel Manni" and COinpany v. FTC 293 F. 2d, 774.

Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act, in that respondent is definedcaused the dissemination in commerce, as "commerce" concerning sa,id pro-said Act, of certain newspaper advertisements dncts, which "\-rere not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 (a) of the said Act, and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, which ac1ve.r6sements were intended to aid, promote, and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of said fur products.

Among such advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondent's which appeared in the Los Angeles Times it ne"\vSptlper published in Los Angeles, CaJifol'nia, having a wide circul tion in California and in other States of the United States. By rneans of said advertisements and others of similar jmport and meaning, not specificnJly referred to herein, respondent falsely and decept.ively advertised fur products, in that said advertisements: Failed to discloso the mune or names (as set forth in the Fur Prorlucts Name Guide) of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product, in violation of Section 5(a) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Respondent argues that, "\1'while he might be technically in error, all of the alleged missing information was set forth in the advertisements. This argument is without merit ,md must be rejected since Rule 38(a) of the gule.s and Reg"ulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act requires that:

In advertising furs 01' fur products, fill parts of the required information shall be stated in close proximity with each other a.nd, if printed, in legible and conspicuous type of equal size.

10. Respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said a.advertisements:

Repre.se,nted prices of fur products to be "at actual cost", when such was not the fact, in violation of Section 5 (n) (5) of the Fur Products Labc1ing )\.ct. and :Rule 44(a) of the Hulcs and Regula.tions promulgated thereunder.

Initial Decision 61 F.

As an example, the respondent advertised Mink "at actual cost" while at the same time he offered a "Fox or Mink-trimmed cashmere sweater free. " The tesbmony of the respondent and that of Mr. Anderson is more than suffcient to sustain the above finding. The spondent stated that he added the cost of the sweater to the price of the fur product, thus the sweater was not given to the purclulser free nor was the fur product sold at "actual cost." Mr. Anderson testified that in the sale of a fur product to one of the customers, Mrs. Housel respondent made a profit of $145.00.

The record shows that during the period the "at actual cost" sale ran, some 25 sales were made of products advertised, and in no case was the fur product solei at actual cost.

There is no doubt and the examiner finds that the respondent' advertisements in Commission Exhibits 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, 71, 72 77 and 78 were false and dccepbve.

11. Respondent falsely and deceptively advertised that he owned or operated a factory producing fur products sold by him, when such was not the fact, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Respondent caused advertisements to be made, Commission Exhibits 12 and 13, that respondent was operating a manu- Jac'.turing plant manufacturing fur products, when such was not the fact. l\fr. Anderson testified that he examined TespollclenVs premises on .July 18 and .July 25, 1960, at a time when respondent advertised vVe must keep our factories running despite bad economic conditions, and that he found no evidence of a manufacturing plant. Respondent himself stated that he did not "run a regular manufacturing place like a wholesaler to seu wholesale." The respondent's statements in tho advertisements holding himself out as a manufacturer of fur products were false and deceptive.

12. By means of tlle advertisements set forth in Commission Exhibits 2, 7 16 and 17, respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products, in that said advertisements:

Represented, directly or by implications, that fur products were guaranteed without disclosing the nature and extent of the guarantee or the manner and form in which the guarantor vwuld perform thereunder, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

The Commission has held that the use of the word "guaranteed" in advertisements, unless additional information is given disclosing the nature and extent of the guarantee, is deceptive. See Samuel A. AJannis and Company, Docket No. 7062. REGAL FURS Initial Decisioll 13. Certain of said fnr products were falsely and deceptively advertised in that lahels containing fictitious prices were affxed to such fur lahels. Among such falsely and deceptively advertised fur products, hut not limited thereto, were fur products with labels which: (A) Contained a purported "sale price, thereby falsely and deceptively representing directly or by implication that the prices of such fur products were reduced from the prices at which respondent regularly and usual11y sold such fur products in the recent regular course of business in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Laheling Act and Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations thereunder. (B) Contained a sale price which was, in fact, fictitious in that such price was in exc.ess of the price at which such fur products were actual11y sold, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

The facts in the case at hand clearly reveal that the respondent's products were advertised in thc Los Angeles Times on July 29, 1959. They were further advertised by means of a representation or notice namely, a, bright reel "special,l sale" ticket hung on the garments with the purported "sale price" thereon. This notice implied, by the use of the blank "regular price" box and the filled in "sale price" box that the fur products had, in fact been reduced from a higher regular and usual price.

These tags were plainly hung on each garment so as to catch the eye of the prospective customers enticed into the store by the prior advertisements. (R. 96, 182) These sales tags convey to the prospective purchaser the idea of a saving. A clear impression of this fact is set forth and this impression due to the falseness of the claims, is misleading. The labels advertise a false price to the public. Such practices are false and deceptive and the public must be protected against them. 14. In advertising fur products for sale, as found above, respondent made pricing claims and representations of the type covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Regulations under the Fur Products Labeling Act. Respondent, in making such claims and representations, failed to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon whi.ch such pricing claims and representations were based in violation of Rule 44 (e) of said Rules and Regulations.

Although the respondent contends that. he maint.ained records and that. he made them available to Mr. Anderson, the record in this proceeding is clear t.hat. respondent. failed t.o maintain books and records 72R-122-fj;)- , FEDERAL TRADE COMMSSION DECISIONS Ini tinl Decision 61 F.

suffcient to meet the requirements of the Act and Regulations. records were ever made available to Mr. Anderson whereby a complete check could be made of either respondent's operations or his pricing claims.

CONCLUSIONS The acts and practices of the respondent hereinabove found are false, misleading and deceptive and are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. This proceeding is in the public interest, and an order to cease and desist the above found unlawful practices should issue against respondent.

ORDER It is ordered That Edgar Gevirtz, an individual trading as Regal Furs, or under any other trade name, and respondent' representatives agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the sale advertising, or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce of fur products, or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution of fur products which are made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. :\1isbranding fur products by :

A. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying such products by any representation, directly or by implication:

(1) That the prices of such products are reduced from the prices at which respondent has usually or customarily sold such products, when such is not the case. (2) That savings are available to purchasers of respondent' s fur products, when such is not the case. R. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying any such product, during any period such product is labeled as on sale, by any representation, directly or by implication that any amount is the sale price of such products when such amount is in excess of the price at which the product is actually sold during such sale period.

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

D. Setting forth on labels affxed to fur products: Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting.

E. Failing to set forth all the information required to be disclosed by Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder on one side of labels.

2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Failing 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 the Fur Products Labeling Act.

B. Setting forth on invoices pertaining to fur products the name or names of any animnJ or animals other than the name or names of the animal producing the fur product as specified in the Fur Products Kame Guide and as prescribed under the Rules and Regulations.

C. Setting forth information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form. D. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

3. 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, directly or indirectly, in the sale or offering for snJe of fur products, and which: A. Fails to set forth all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

B. Represents directly or by implication that prices of fur products are "at actual cost" or words of similar import when such is not the fact.

C. Represents in any manner, contrary to fact, directly or by implication, that prices of such products are reduced from the prices at which re.spondent has usually or customarily sold such products in the recent regular course of business. D. Represents in any manner, during any period any such product is on sale, that any amount is the sale price of such product when such amount is in excess of the price at which the product is actually sold during such sale period. FEDERAL TRADE COM,\fISSION DECISIONS Syllabus 61 F.

E. Represents in any manner that sflvings are available to purchasers of respondent's fur products, when such is not the fact.

F. Repreoents directly or by implication that respondent owns or operated a factory, or words of similar import, when such is not the fact.

G. Represents directly 01' by implication that fur products are guaranteed, unless the nature and extent of such guarantee and the mallner in \\'which the guarantor will perform thereunder are clearly and conspicuously set forth. 4. Making claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act unless there are maintained by respondent full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations arc based.

FIX AL ORDER The Commission by its order of June 21, 1962, having placed this case on its docket for review; and The Commission now having concluded that the initial decision of the hearing examiner is appropriate in a11 respects to dispose of this proceeding:

It is ordered That the initial decision of the hearing examiner filed May 8, 1962, be, and it hereby is, adopted as the decision of the Commission.

It is further ordered That the respondent Edgar Gevirtz shall within sixty (60) days after service upon him of this order, fie with the Commission a report, in writing, setting forth jn detail the manner