Esther Wolf, Inc.

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

In THe Marrer or ESTHER WOLF, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-282. Complaint, Dec. 18, 1962—Decision, Dec. 18, 1962 Consent order requiring a furrier in Houston, Tex., to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by representing in labeling and advertising that fictitious prices were reductions from regular retail prices; failing to show on labels and invoices and in advertising the true animal name of furs, and on invoices and in advertising the country of origin of imported furs; failing in advertising to disclose that products contained artificially colored furs, and to use the term “natural” where required; failing to comply in other respects with labeling and invoicing requirements; and 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 Complaint 61 F.T.C.

vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Esther Wolf, Inc., a corporation, and E. Joseph Wolf and Leonard Halpern, individually and as officers of said corporate respondent, 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:

Paracrapu 1, Respondent Esther Wolf, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas.

Individual respondents E. Joseph Wolf and Leonard Halpern are officers of the corporate respondent. Said individual respondents cooperate in formulating, directing and controlling the acts, policies and practices of the corporate respondent including the acts and practices hereinafter referred to, Respondents are in the business of retailing fur products. All respondents have their offices and principal place of business located at Post Oak and San Felipe Roads, Houston, Texas. 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. 8. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that labels affixed thereto represented prices of fur products as having been reduced from regular or usual prices when the so-called regular or usual prices were in fact fictitious in that they were not the prices at which said merchandise was usually sold by the respondents 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 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 Regulations promulgated thereunder. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products with labels which failed to show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product.

ESTHER WOLF, INC., ET AL. 1403 1401 Complaint Par. 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 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) 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 Regulations.

(c) 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 said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondents in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under such Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were invoices pertaining to such fur products which failed:

1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product. 2. To show the country of origin of the imported furs used in the fur product.

Par. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely.and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that information required under Section 5 (b) (1) 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. Par. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that said products were not advertised in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(a) of the said Act and 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 products. Among and included in the advertisements as aforesaid but not limited thereto were advertisements of respondents which appeared in the Complaint 61 F.T.C.

Houston Post and the Houston Chronicle, newspapers published in the city of Houston, State of Texas.

By means 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 advertisements: (a) Failed to disclose the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur products as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide in violation of Section 5(a) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

(b) Failed 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.

(c) Failed to disclose the name of the country of origin of the imported furs contained in the fur products, in violation of Section 5(a) (6) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 9. Respondents, by means of the labels referred to in paragraph 3 hereof and others of similar import and meaning, not specifically referred to herein, falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertisements represented prices of fur products as having been reduced from regular or usual prices where so-called regular or usual. prices were in fact fictitious in that they were not the prices at which said merchandise was usually sold by the respondents 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 the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Par. 10. Respondents by the means hereinbefore alleged, falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that said fur products were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Among such advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements which failed to use the term “natural” to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(g) of said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 11. 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. Respondents, In making such claims and. representations failed to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims ESTHER WOLF, INC., ET AL. 1405 1401 . Decision and Order and representations were based in violation of Rule 44(e) of said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 12. 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 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 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, Esther Wolf, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas, with its office and principal place of business located at Post Oak and San Felipe Roads, in the city of Houston, State of Texas. Respondents E. Joseph Wolf and Leonard Halpern are officers of said corporation and their address is the same as that of said corporation.

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 Esther Wolf, Inc., a corporation and its officers, and E. Joseph Wolf and Leonard Halpern, individually _and as officers of said corporation and respondents’ representatives, Decision and Order 61 F.T.C.

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 any fur product, or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for 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 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. Failing to affix 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.

B. Representing on labels or other means of identification, directly or by implication, that any price, when accompanied or unaccompanied by any descriptive language, was the price at which the merchandise so labeled or otherwise identified was usually and customarily sold at retail by the respondents unless such said merchandise was in fact usually and customarily sold at retail at such price by the respondents in the recent past.

C. 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. 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 sequence required by Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. . 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. B. 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. 3. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the bo CHARMOLL FASHIONS, INC., ET AL. 1407 1401 Syllabus 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 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 any price, when accompanied or unaccompanied by any descriptive language, was the price at which the merchandise advertised was usually and customarily sold at retail by the respondents unless such advertised merchandise was in fact usually and customarily sold at retail at such price by the respondents in the recent past.

C. Fails to use the term “natural” to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

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 respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based.

Itis 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.