Berkeley'S of Fresno, Inc.

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

In toe Marrer oF BERKELEY'S OF FRESNO, 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-500. Complaint, May 17, 1968—Decision, May 17, 1963 Consent order requiring Fresno, Calif., retail furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by affixing to fur products labels bearing fictitious prices, represented thereby as usual selling prices; by failing on invoices, to show the true animal name of furs and the country of origin of imported furs, to disclose when furs were artificially colored and to use terms “Broadtail”, “Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb”, and “natural” as required; by representing prices on invoices as reduced from regular prices which were fictitious; by advertising in newspapers, etc., which failed to show the true animal name of fur, and represented falsely that their “Pre Christmas Fur BERKELEY'S OF FRESNO, INC., ET AL. 1333 1332 Complaint Sale” offered “20% to 30% Savings” ; by failing to maintain adequate records as a basis for pricing claims; and by failing in other respects to comply with requirements of the Act.

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 Berkeley’s of Fresno, Inc., a corporation, and Gilbert C. Berkeley, individually and as an officer of the 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: Paracrapu 1. Respondent Berkeley’s of Fresno, Inc., is a corporation, organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California.

Respondent Gilbert C. Berkeley is an officer of the corporate respondent and formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are retailers of fur products with their office and principal place of business located at 887 Fulton Street, Fresno, California.

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 furs which have 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 represented that prices of fur products had been reduced from regular or usual prices of such fur products and that the amount of such reductions constituted savings to purchasers 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 respondents in the recent regular course of business and the represented savings were not thereby afforded to purchasers, in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Par. 4. Certain of said fur products were falcely and deceptively in- 749-5387—67——S5 Complaint 62 F.T.C.

voiced 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 fur products covered by invoices which failed: (a) To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product.

(b) To disclosure that the fur contained in the fur product was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

(c) To show the name of the country of origin of the imported furs used in fur products.

Par. 5. 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 the following respects : (a) The term “Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb” was not set forth on invoices in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The term “natural” was not used on invoices to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(¢) of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely or deceptively invoiced or otherwise falsely and deceptively identified with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 5(b)(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products invoiced as “Broadtail” thereby implying that the furs contained therein were entitled to the designation “Broadtail Lamb” when in truth and in fact they are not entitled to such designation. Par. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that invoices relating thereto represented that prices of fur products had been reduced from the regular or usual prices of such fur products and that the amount of such reductions constituted savings to purchasers 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 respondents in the recent regular course of business and the represented savings were not thereby afforded BERKELEY'S OF FRESNO, INC., ET AL. 1335 1332 Complaint to purchasers, in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Par. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that certain advertisements intended to aid, promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of such fur products were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(a) of the said Act. Among and included in the aforesaid advertisements but not limited thereto, were signs, circulars, labels, and other advertisements of respondents, the latter of which appeared in issues of the Fresno Bee, a newspaper published in the City of Fresno, State of California. Among such false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements which failed to show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product.

Par. 9. Respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products by affixing labels thereto which represented that prices of such fur products had been reduced from regular or usual prices of such products and that the amount of such reductions constituted savings to purchasers 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 respondents in the recent regular course of business and the represented savings were not thereby afforded to purchasers, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44(a) of the Rules and Regulations. Par. 10. In advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid respondents represented through such statement as “Pre Christmas Fur Sale Offering 20% to 30% Savings”, that prices of fur products were reduced in direct proportion to the percentage of savings stated and the amount of said reductions afforded savings to the purchasers of respondents’ products when in fact such prices were not reduced in direct proportion to the percentage of savings stated and the represented savings were not thereby afforded to the said purchasers, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 11. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondents 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, in that the term “natural” was not used to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(g) of the said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 12. In advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid, respond- Decision and Order 62 F.T.C.

ents made pricing claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Regulations 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 pricing claims and representations were based, in violation of Rule 44(e) of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 13. 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. DeEcISION 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 Berkeley’s of Fresno, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, with its office and principal place of business located at 887 Fulton Street, Fresno, California. Respondent Gilbert C. Berkeley is an officer of said corporation, and his 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 7s ordered, That respondents Berkeley’s of Fresno, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Gilbert C. Berkeley, individually and as BERKELEY'S OF FRESNO, INC., ET AL. 1337 1332 Decision and Order an officer 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, adver-tising 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:

A. Misbranding fur products by:

1. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying such products by any representation that any price, when accompanied or unaccompanied by any descriptive language, was the price at which the merchandise so represented was usually and customarily sold at retail by the respondents unless such merchandise was in fact usually and customarily sold at retail by respondents at such prices in the recent past. 2. Misrepresenting in any manner on labels or other means of identification the savings available to purchasers of respondents’ products.

3. Falsely or deceptively representing in any manner, directly or by implication, on labels or other means of identification that prices of respondents’ fur products are reduced. 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 in each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing any fur product with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in such fur product. 3. Failing to set forth the term “Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb” in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words “Dyed Lamb”. 4, Failing to set forth the term “Natural” as part of the information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

5. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to fur products.

Decision and Order 62 F.T.C.

6. Representing that any price, when accompanied or unaccompanied by any descriptive language, was the price at which the fur products so represented were usually and customarily sold at retail by respondents unless such fur product was in fact usually and customarily sold by respondents at such price in the recent past.

7. Misrepresenting in any manner on invoices the savings available to purchasers of respondents’ fur products. 8. Falsely or deceptively representing, directly or by implication, on invoices that prices of respondents’ fur products are reduced.

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 any fur product and which:

1. Fails to set forth 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. 2. 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 respondents in the recent past.

3. Represents directly or by implication through percentage savings claims that prices of fur products are reduced to afford purchasers of respondents’ fur products the percentage of savings stated, when the prices of such fur products are not reduced to afford to purchasers the percentage of savings stated.

4, Misrepresents in any manner the savings available to purchasers of respondents’ fur products. , 5. Falsely or deceptively represents in any manner that prices of respondents’ fur products are reduced. 6. Fails to set forth the term “natural” as part of the information required under Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, ~ bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored. D. Making claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) of Rule 44 of the Regulations COMMERCIAL TRADES INSTITUTE ET AL. 1339 13382 Complaint 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.