Pollock Stores Co., Inc.

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

IN THE ~IA TTER OF POLLOCIC STORES CO., INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER , ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TR..~DE COl\Il\fISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-217. Complaint, Sept. 10, 19GB-Decision, Sept. 10 1962 Consent order requiring a corporate operator of several branch stores and its branch in Fort Smith, Ark., to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to label fur products with the required information and to label them as "natural" when such was the case; failing, in in-voicing, to show the true animal name of fur and, in invoicing and advertising, to disclose when it was artificially colored; representing falsely, in newspaper , Complaint 61 F.

advertising, that prices of fur products were reduced "28% to 47%" ; failing to maintain adequate records as a basis for pricing claims; and failing in other respects to comply with labeling and invoicing requirements. CO~IPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Conll11ission having reason to believe that Pollock Stores Co., Inc., a corporation, and Lowell Sellars, individually and general manager of Arcade-Rockwood, a branch store of the said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations prOll1ulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARA.GRAPH 1. Respondent Pollock Stores Co., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the la . of the State of Oklahoma with its office and principal place of busi. ness located at 900 Garrison A venne, Fort Smith, Ark. The corporate respondent operates several branch stores and retails various commodities including fur products. One of the branch stores is Arcade- Rockwood located at 900 Garrison Avenue., Fort Smith, Ark. Individual respondent Lowell Sellars is general manager of the Arcade-Rockwood store and controls, directs and formulates the acts practices and policies of the fur department of the said Arcade-Rockwood store. His office and principal place of business is the same as that of the said corporate respondent.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction into commerce and in the sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution, in commerce, of fur products; and have sold, advertised offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which had been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were not labeled as required under the pro\risions of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regula,tions pron1ulgated thereunder.

POLLOCK STORES CO., INC. , ET AL. 459 457 Complaint Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products that were not labeled with any of the information required under the said Act and said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 4. 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 the following respects:

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

(b) Failure to describe fur products as natural where such fur products were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) 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 Hegulations.

(d) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth in the required sequence, in violation of Rule 30 of the said Rules and Regulations.

(e) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth separately on labels with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or nlore sections containing different animal furs, in violation of Rule 36 of said Rules and Regulations. (f) Required itm11 nmnbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondents 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 nlanner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not linlited thereto, were invoices pertaining to such fur pro duets which failed:

1. To show the true animal name of the ful' 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.

Complaint 61 F.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoieed in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they ""ere not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder inasmuch as required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely or deceptively advertised in that said fur products were not advertised as required under the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the Inanner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Said advertisements 'were intended to aid, promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of said fur products.

Among and included in the advertise111ents as aforesaid, but not limiteel thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of Southwest American and Fort Smith Tiules Record, newspapers published in the city of Fort Smith, State of Arkansas and having a wide circulation in said State and various other States of the United States.

By Ineans of said advertisements and others of similar import and meaning, not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertismnents: (a) Represented through percentage savings claims such as "Give the Finest for Christmas and Save 28% to 47%" that prices of fur products were reduced in direct proportion to the percentage of savings stated when such was not the fact, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44(a) of said Rules and Regulations.

(0) Failed to describe fur products as natural where such fur produets were not pointeel, bleaehed, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) or said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 8. Respondents in advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid, made claims and representations respecting prices and values of fur products. Said representations were of the type covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act. Respondents in making suell claims and representations failed to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon 'which such claims and representations were based, in violation of Rule 44 (e) of said Rules and Regulations.

POLLOCK STORES CO. , INC. , ET AL. 461 457 Decision and Order PAR. 9. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and R,egulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION 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 Comlnission 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 Commission intended to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and The respondents and counsel for the Con1111ission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by 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 admission by respondents that the law has been violated as set forth in such complaint and ,,"waivers and provisions as required by the Commission s rules; and The Commission, having considered the agreen1ent, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement makes the follo"\ving jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Pollock Stores Co., Inc., is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Oklahoma with its office and principal place of business loeatecl at 900 Garrison Avenue, Fort Smith, Arkansas. The corporate respondent operates several branch stores and retails various commodities including fur products. One of the branch stores is Arcade- Rockwood, also located at the above address. Respondent Lowell Sellars is general manager of the Arcade-Rockwood store and his address is the same as that of said corporate respondent. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER t is ordered That respondent Pollock Stores Co. Inc., a c.orporation, trading under its own name or as Arcade-Rockwood or under any other trade name, and its officers, and respondent Lofi-ell Sellars individually and as general manager of Arcade-Rockwood, a branch , Decision and Order 61 F.

store of the said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into cormnerce, or the sale, advertising, or offering for sale, in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce, of any fur product; or in connection with the sale advertising, offering lor sale, transportation, or distribution of any fur product which is made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in 'conm1erce, as "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act do forthwith cease and desist fronl 1. ~1:isbranding fur products by:

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

B. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products: 1. Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form. 2. Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting. C. Failing to describe fur products as natural where such. fur products are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificiallv colored.

D. Failing to set forth the information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the required sequence.

E. Failing to set forth separately on labels attached to fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to the fur comprising each section.

F. Failing to set forth the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. THE FABRIC SHOP, INC., ET AL. 463 457 Syllabus B. Failing to set forth the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

3. Falsely and 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 sale of fur products and which;A. Represents directly or by implication through percentage savings claims that prices of fur products are reduced in direct proportion to the percentage of savings stated when such is not the fact.

B. ~iisrepresents in any manner the savings available to purchasers of respondents ' fur products.

C. Fails to describe fur products as natural where such fur products are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially 4. ~1aking claims and representationscolored.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 respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based.

It is ht'rther ordel'ed That the respondents herein 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 this order.