Blum's Vogue, Inc.

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

In the Marrer oF BLUM’S VOGUE, INC.,, ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FED- ERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-238. Complaint, Sept. 20, 1962—Decision, Sept. 20, 1962 Consent order requiring a Chicago furrier to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by attaching to fur products labels containing fictitious prices represented thereby as regular retail prices; by advertising in newspapers which failed to show the true animal name of furs, to disclose when fur products contained artificially colored fur, and to describe as “natural,” furs which were not artificially colored; and by failing to maintain adequate records as a basis for price and value claims. Complaint 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 Commission having reason to believe that Blum’s Vogue, Inc., a corporation, and Irving Eisen individually and as an officer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated 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: Paracrapy 1. Blum’s Vogue, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Illinois, with its office and principal place of business located at 624 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Ill. Respondents retail women’s clothing and manufacture and retail fur products. BLUM’S VOGUE, INC., ET AL. 705 704 . Complaint Individual respondent Irving Eisen is an officer of the corporate respondent and controls, directs and formulates the acts, practices and policies of the corporate respondent. His office and principal place of business is the same as that of the 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 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 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 labels affixed thereto contained fictitious prices and misrepresented the regular retail selling prices of such fur products in that the prices represented on such labels as the regular prices of the fur products were in excess of the retail prices at which the respondents usually and regularly sold such fur products in the recent regular course of business, in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 4. 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 manner 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 advertisements as aforesaid but not limited thereto were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the Chicago Daily Tribune, a newspaper published in the city of Chicago, State of Illinois and having a wide circulation in said State and various other States of the United States. Among such false and deceptive advertisements of fur products, but not limited thereto, were advertisements which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product, in violation of Section 5(a) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. To disclose that fur products contained or were composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur when such was the fact, in violation of Section 5(a) (8) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Decision and Order 61 F.T.C.

Par. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder inasmuch as the fur products were not described 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.

Par. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely or deceptively advertised in that labels affixed thereto contained fictitious prices and misrepresented the regular retail selling price of such fur products in that the prices represented on such labels as the regular prices of the fur products were in excess of the retail prices which respondents usually and regularly sold such fur products in the recent regular course of business, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44(a) of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 7. 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 types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act. The respondents in making such 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.

Par. 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 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 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 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 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 re- BLUM’S VOGUE, INC., ET AL. 707 704 Decision and Order spondents 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 agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Blum’s Vogue, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Illinois, with its office and principal place of business located at 624 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Ill.

Respondent Irving Eisen is an officer of the corporate respondent and his address is the same as that of the 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 It is ordered, That respondents Blum’s Vogue, Inc., a corporation and its officers, and Irving Eisen, individually and as an officer of said corporation and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, manufacture for introduction, 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, manufacture for sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution of fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which had 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. Misbranding fur products by:

A. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying such products as to the regular prices or values thereof by any representation that the regular or usual prices of such products are any amount in excess of the prices at which respondents have usually and customarily sold such products in the recent regular course of business. 2. 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 sale of fur products, and which:

A. Fails to set forth in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the Complaint . 61 F.T.C..

subsections of Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

B. Fails to describe fur products as natural, when such: is the fact.

C. Represents directly or by implication that the regular or usual price of any fur product is any amount which is in excess of the price at which respondents have usually and customarily sold such products in the recent regular course: of business.

D. Misrepresents in any manner the savings available to: purchasers of respondents’ fur products.

3. Making claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the 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 further ordered, 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.