Consolidated Apparel Co.

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

In THe Marrer or CONSOLIDATED APPAREL CO. TRADING AS ROSENBERG’S ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING, AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket 0-807. Jan. 25, 1963—Decision, Jan. 25, 1968 Consent order requiring Milwaukee, Wis., retailers of fur and textile fiber products to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing to label fur products, labeling and invoicing them improperly, by advertising which failed to show when fur products were artificially colored and to disclose the country of origin of imported furs, and failing to keep adequate records as a basis for price and value claims; and to cease violating the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act by advertising textiles as “poplin” and “‘faille” without setting forth the required information as to fiber content, and advertising and branding as “New Fur Fabric Coats,” products which contained no hair or fiber of a fur-bearing animal; and requiring them to. comply with other provisions of both Acts. Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Textile Fiber Products Indentification Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that Consolidated Apparel Co., a corporation trading as Rosenherg’s, and ROSENBERG'S ET AL. 1138 112 Complaint Ada Levine and Edward Levine, individually and as officers 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 the Textile Fiber Products Identification 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:

Paracrary 1. Respondent Consolidated Apparel Co., trading as Rosenberg’s, is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Wisconsin with its office and principal place of business located at 2303 North Third, Milwaukee, Wis.

Individual respondents Ada Levine and Edward Levine are officers of the said corporate respondent and control, direct and formulate the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent. Their office and principal place of business is the same as that of the said corporate respondent.

The corporate respondent and the individual respondents retail various commodities including textile fiber products and fur products. 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 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 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.

Complaint 62 F.T.C.

(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 set forth illegibly on labels, in violation of Rule 28 of said Rules and Regulations.

(d) Required item numbers 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 by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products that were not invoiced with any of the information required under the said Act and said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 6. 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 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 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 Milwaukee Journal, a newspaper published in the city of Milwaukee, State of Wisconsin.

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 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.

B. 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. ROSENBERG’S ET AL. 115 112 Complaint 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 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 and representations were based, in violation of Rule 44(e) of said Rules and Regulations.

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 Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. Par. 10. Subsequent to the effective date of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act on March 3, 1960, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction, sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, and in the importation into the United States of textile fiber products; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, textile fiber products, which have been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, after shipment in commerce, textile fiber products, either in their original state or contained in other textile fiber products; as the terms “commerce” and “textile fiber product” are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

Par. 11. Certain of said textile fiber products were falsely and deceptively advertised in that respondents in making disclosures or implications as to the fiber content of such textile fiber products in written advertisements failed to set forth the required information as to fiber content as specified by Section 4(c) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. Said advertisements were used to aid, promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of said textile fiber products.

Among and included in the advertisements as aforesaid, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the Milwaukee Journal, a newspaper published in the city of Milwaukee, State of Wisconsin.

Among such falsely and deceptively advertised textile fiber prod- Decision and Order 62 F.T.C.

ucts, but not limited thereto, were articles of wearing apparel which were described as “poplin” and “faille” without containing any of the aforesaid required information.

Par. 12. In advertising textile fiber products for sale as aforesaid respondents falsely and deceptively advertised said textile fiber products in that the name or symbol of a fur-bearing animal was used in the advertisement of such products when said products or parts thereof in connection with which the name or symbol of a fur bearing animal was used, were not furs or fur products within the meaning of the Fur Products Labeling Act and did not contain the hair or fiber of a fur bearing animal, in violation of Section 4(g) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Rule 9 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Among such falsely and deceptively advertised textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were articles of wearing apparel which were described as “new fur fabric coats”. Par. 18. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4(a) of the ‘Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, invoiced, advertised or otherwise identified as to the name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were textile fiber products which were described in advertisements as “New Fur Fabric Coats”. By means of the said advertisements the said textile fiber products were represented, either directly or indirectly as containing the hair or fiber of a fur-bearing animal, when such was not the fact.

Par. 14. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled, or other- ‘wise identified with the information required under Section 4(b) of the. Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the said Act. Par. 15. The acts and practices of respondents as set forth above in Paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 were, and are now, in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, and now constitute, unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices, in commerce, under the Federal Trace Commission Act. Decision AND ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof with ROSENBERG’S ET AL. oo 117 112 © Order violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the Textile Fiber Products Identification 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 Consolidated Apparel Co., trading as Rosenberg’s, is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Wisconsin ‘with its office and principal place of business located at 2303 North Third, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Respondents Ada Levine and Edward Levine 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 Consolidated Apparel Co., a corporation, trading as Rosenberg’s or under any other trade name, and its officers, and Ada Levine, and Edward Levine, individually and as officers of said corporation and respondents’ 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 clesist from:

749-537—67——-9 Order 62 F.T.C..

A. Misbranding fur products by:

1, 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.

2. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products: (a) Information required under Section 4(2) of the- Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regula-. tions promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form. (b) Information required under Section 4(2) of the: Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regula-. tions promulgated thereunder in handwriting. (c) Information required under Section 4(2) of the: Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regula-. tions promulgated thereunder in illegible form. 3. Failing to set forth on labels the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. 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. 2. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

C. 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 fails to show in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling: Act.

D. 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.

It is further ordered, That respondents Consolidated Apparel Co., a corporation, trading as Rosenberg’s or under any other trade name, and its officers, and Ada Levine and Edward Levine, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other ROSENBERG’S ET AL. 119 112 Order device, in-connection with the introduction, delivery for introduction, sale, advertising or offering for sale, in commerce, or in the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, or the importation into the United States of any textile fiber product; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation or causing to be transported, of any textile fiber product which has been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation or causing to be transported, after shipment in commerce, of any textile fiber product, whether in its original state or contained in other textile fiber products, as the terms “commerce” and “textile fiber product” are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. Falsely or deceptively advertising textile fiber products by: 1. Making any representations, by disclosure or by implication, as to the fiber contents of any textile fiber product in any written advertisement which is used to aid, promote, or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale of such textile fiber product, unless the same information required to be shown on the stamp, tag, label or other means of identification under Section 4(b) (1) and (2) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act is contained in the said advertisement, except that the percentages of the fibers present in the textile fiber product need not be stated.

2. Using any name, word, depiction, descriptive matter, or other symbol, which connotes or signifies a fur-bearing animal, unless such products or parts thereof in connection with which the names, words, depictions, descriptive matter or other symbols are used, are furs or fur products within the meaning of the Fur Products Labeling Act: Provided, however, That where a textile fiber product contains the hair or fiber of a fur-bearing animal, the name of such animal, in conjunction with the words “fiber”, “hair”, or “blend”, may be used.

B. Misbranding textile fiber products by: 1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, invoicing, advertising or otherwise identifying such products as to the name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein.

2. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, invoicing, advertising or otherwise identifying such products by representing, either directly or by implication, through 120 FEDERAL TRADE. COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint 62 F.T.C.

the use of such terms as “Fur Fabric” or any other terms which connote or imply the presence of a fiber, that any fiber not present in a textile fiber product is contained therein.

3. Failing to affix labels to such textile fiber products showing each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

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.