The Pariseau Corp.

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

IN THE fatter OF THE PARISEAu CORP. ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER , ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEG:ED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 0-576. Complaint, Sept. 10, 1963-Decislon, Sept. 10, 1963 Consent order requiring a Massachusetts wholesaler and two )Jew Hampshire retailers of furs, to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing on labels and invoices and in advertising, to describe as "natural" tur products that were not artificially colored; failng in invoicing and advertising, to show the country of origin of imported furs and to disclose that certain furs were bleached, etc. ; failng all invoices, to show the true animal name of fur and when the product contained cheap or waste fur; failng to use the term "Persian Lamb" as required on invoices, and "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" in advertising; represent. Ing prices falsely as reduced from so-called regular prices which were fictitious, and as "25 to 30% off" and reduced "up to 50% and more failng to rnaintuin adequate records as a basis for pricing claims; sub. stituting nonconforming labels on fur products for those affxed by the manufacturer, etc. , and failng in other respects to comply with labeling, invoicing and advertising requirements. 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 reoson to believe that The Pariseau Corp., Rooks, Inc., and Rooks, Inc. of Lynn, corporations, and their offcers, and Alexa,nder Hooks, individually and as an offcer of said corporations, and George Younger and Isadore Rooks, individually and as offcers of The Pariseau Corp. and Jack Younger, individually and as manager of the fur department of The Pariseau Corp. , hereinafter referred to as respondents , .

THE PARISEAl: CORP. ET AL. 579 578 Complaint have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, and 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:

P ARAORAPH 1. Respondents The Pariseau Corp. and Rooks, Inc., are corporations organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Kew Hampshire. Respondent Rooks, Inc. of Lynn is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Respondents Isadore Rooks, Alexander Rooks, and George Younger are oiIcers of corporate respondent The Pariseau Corp., and along with respondent Jack Younger formulate, direct and control the acts practices and policies of said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondent J ack Younger is manager of the fur department of corporate respondent, The Pariseau Corp., and assists in formulating, directing and controlling the acts and practices or such corporate respondent with respect to the aforesaid fur department. Respondent Alexander Rooks is also an offcer of corporate respondents Rooks, Inc., and Rooks, Inc. of Lynn, and formulates, controls and directs the acts, practices and policies of said corporate respondents including those hereinafter set forth. Respondents The Pariseau Corp. and Rooks, Inc., are retailers of fur products and have their offce and principal place of business located at 1001 Elm Street Ianchester, New Hampshire. Respondent Rooks, Inc. of Lynn is a wholesaler and retailer of fur products and has its offce and principal place of business at 313 Union Street, Lynn, Massachusetts.

The offce and principal place of business of individual respondent Alexander Hooks is the same as that of corporate respondent Rooks Inc. of Lynn.

The offce and principal place of business of individual respondents George Younger Tack Younger and Isadore Rooks is the same as corporate respondent The PR-riseau Corp.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 195:2, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in the sale, advertising. and offering for sale, in commerce, and ill the transportation and distribution in commerce, or 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 580 FEDERAL TRADE CO:\L\JISSION DECISIONS Compliint 63 F.

received in commerce, as the terms "commerce, "fur" and "fur product" are defilled in the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 3. 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 thereullder was set forth in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth on labels in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) The term "natural" was not usee! to describe fur products that were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 18 (g) of said Rules and Regulations. (d) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the liules and Re,gulations promulgated thereunder in violation of Rule 29 (b) wasof setsaidforthRulesin handwritingandonRegulations.labels, (e) Information requiredll1der 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.

PAIL 4. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondents in t,hat they were not invoiced as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the Rules and Hegulat.ions promulgated under such Act. Among such fa,lsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not lilnitecl thereto ,were invoices pertaining to such fur products which failed:

1. To show the true animal na,me of the fur used in the fur product. 2. To show the country of origin of imported furs used in the fur products.

3. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur product was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

4. To show that the fur product was e01l posed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, belles or waste fur, when such was the fact.

PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoieecl wit.h respect to the name of the country of origin of iraported , Tile PARISEAU COHP. ET AI. 581 578 Complaint furs used in such products, in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products invoiced to show the name of the country oforigill of furs conta,inecl in such fur products as Russia '\yhe11 tho country of origin of such furs was, in fact, Finland. PAR. 6. Certain of said fnr products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they '\verb not invoiced in a.accordance with the Rules and R.egulations prollulgrLtec1 thereunder in the Iol1mying respects: (a) Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Hules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The term "Persian La,mb" was not set forth on invoices in the Inanner required by llLw, in violation of Rule 8 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) The tel'm "natural" was not used to describe fur products that were not pointed, bleachcd, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(9) of said Rules and Regulations. (d) Required item numbers ,,,cre not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 7. 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 oflering for sale of such fur products '\YBre not in acconlance with the provisions of Sectioll 5 (a) of the saiel Act.

Among and included in the aforesaid advertisements but not limited thereto, '\were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of t11( ::Ianchester Union Leader, a newspaper publishN1 ill the Citv of .ranchester, State of ew Hampshire. Among such false and decept.ive advertisements, but not limited thereto were advertisements which failed: 1. To show th"t the ful contained in the fur product was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact. 2. To show the country of origin of imported furs contained in fur products.

PAll. 8. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of imilar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that ce.rtain of said fnr products were falsely or deceptively ic1entiflcc1 ,\yjth 7S0- 01.s- , 582 FEDERAL TRADE Cm1Ml&SION DECISIONS Complaint 63 F.

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(") (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such falsely and deceptively advertised fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products advertised as "Coney" when the fur contained in such fur products was, in fact Rabbit" PAR. 9. 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 the said fur products were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) Information required under Section 5 (a) 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 the said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required, in violation of Rule 10 of the said Rules Regulations.

(c) 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. 10. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and other advertisements of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertisements represented that the prices of fur products "ere reduced from regular or usual retail prices and that the amount of such price reductions afforded savings to the purchasers of respondents' products, when the so-called regular or usual retail prices were, in fact, fictitious in that t.hey 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 t.hereby afforded to the purchasers, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44 (a) of the Rules and R.egulations promulgated under the sa,icl Act. PAR. 11. In advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid respondents represented through such statements as "All furs reduced 25 to 30% off" and "Saye up to 50% and more" that prices of fur products were reduced in direct proportion to the percentages stated and that the amount of said reduction afforded savings to the purchasers of THE PARISEAU CORP. ET AL. 583 578 Deci ion and Order respondents' products when in fact such prices were not reduced in direct proportion to the percentages 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. 12. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein respondents falsely "nd deceptively advertised fur products in that 2aid advertisements misrepresented prices as being "offered at below cost" "nd thereby also misrepresented the savings available to purchasers of said products, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44(a) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the aforesaid Act.

PAR. 13. In advertising fur products for sale, as aforesaid, respondt'r.ts made pricing claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Hegulations 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 2uch pricing claims a.nd representations were based, in violation Rule 44(e) of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 14. Respondents in introducing, sening, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in processing for commerce :fur products; and in selling, advertising, offering for sale and processing fur products which have been shipped and received in commerce, have misbranded such fur products by substituting thereon, labels which did not conform to the requirements of Section 4 of the Fur Products Labeling Act, for the labels affxed to said fur products hy the manufacturer or distributor pursuant to Section 4 of said Act in violation of Section 3 (e) of said Act. PAR. 15. 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 AXD ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the caption hcreof 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 intcndcd to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and 584 FEDERAL TRADE CO:\L\JISSIOl\ DECISIONS Decisiun and. Ol'd€l' D8 P. The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement cont.aining a consent order, an admission by rspondents of ,,11 the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to issue herein, a statement that the signing of said agreement is Tor settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as set forth in such complaint, and \-ra.lvers and provisions as required by the Commis 810n 8 rules; and The Commission, having considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement makes the fonowing jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Hespondents The Pariseau Corp. and Rooks, Inc., are corporations organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Hampshire with their offces and principal places of business located at 1001 Elm Street, in the city of Manchester, State of :'ew Hampshire.

Responden t Rooks, Inc. of Lynn is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with its offce and principal place of business located at 313 17union Street, in the city of Lynn, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Respondents Isadore Rooks, Alexander Rooks and George Younger arc officers of The Pariseau Corp. Respondent Jack Younger is manager of the fur department of the Pariseau Corp. Respondent Alexander Rooks is also an offcer of Rooks, Inc., a.nd Rooks, Inc. of Lynn, and his address is the same as that of Rooks Inc. of Lynn. The address of George Younger, J ack Younger and Isadore Rooks is the same as thftt of the Pariseau Corp. 2. Thc 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 1 t is ordered That respondents The Pariseau Corp., and Rooks Inc. and Rooks, Inc. of Lynn, corpol'fltions and their offcers J. ncl Alexander Rooks, individually and as an offcer of said corporations and George Y Olmger and Isadore Rooks, individually and as offc.ers of The Pariseau Corp. and Jack Younger, individually and as manager of the fur clepmiment of The Pa.l'iSeml Corp. , and respondents represent.atives, agents and employees, directly or through any CQr- THE PARTSEAV CORP, ET AL. 585 Decision nnd Older para te, or other device, in connection 'ivith the introduction into commerce, or the sale, a.advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or tl1€, transportation or distribution in commerce, of any fur product; or in eOil1ection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale, trans. porration 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 "c.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. Setting forth infornution required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form on labels affxed to fur products.

2. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamh' on labels in the mH.lner required l,yhere an election is made to use that term in lieu of the term "Dyed Lamb"

3. Failing to set forth the term "X natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on labels under the Fur Products L"beling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

4. Setting forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Jinks and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting on labels affxed to fur products.

5. Failing to set forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder on labels in the sequence required by Hule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and R.egulatiol1s.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish jnvoices 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. Ijsrepresenting in any manner, directly or by implication, the country of origin of the fur contained in fur products.

3. Setting forth information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Prod nets Labeling Act and the Rules 586 FEDERAL TIMDE CO:W:YUSSION DECISIONS Decisioll and Order 63 F.:r. and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

4. Failing to set forth the term "Persian Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the word "Lamb"

5. Failing to set forth the term "Natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on invoices under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations pro mulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

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

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. Falsely or deceptively advertising any fur product with respect to the name or designation or the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in such fur product. 3. Sers forth information required under Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated :form. 4. Fails to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" in the manne.r required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words "Dyed Lamb" 5. Fails to set forth the term "Natural" as part of the informat.ion required to be diseJosec1 in adve-r6sements ur:.dl;l' 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.

6. Represents, directly or by implication, that any price when accompanied 01' unaccompanied by any descriptive language, was tile price at. which the merchandise adrertised was usually and customarily sold at retail by the responder, THE PARISEAU CORP. ET AL. 587 578 Decision and Order unless such advertised merchandise was in fact usually and customarily sold at mtail at such price by respondents in tho recent past.

7. 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 purchasers the percentage of savings stated.

8. Misrepresents in any manner the savings available to purchasers of respondents' fur products.

9. Falsely or deceptively represents in any manner that prices of respondents' fur prod I1cts arc reduced. 10. Falsely or deceptively represents directly or by implication that the prices of fur products are at or below cost. D. Making claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 oftheRules 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 arc based.

I t f1idhel' ordered That respondents The Pariseau Corp., and Hooks, Inc. and Rooks, Inc. of Lynn corporations Hnd their offcers and Alexa,nder Rooks, individually and as an offcer of said corporations and George Younger and Isadore Rooks, individually and as offcers of The Pariseau Corp. and J ack Younger, individually and as ma,nager of the fur department of The Pariseau Corp., and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, sale ?advertising or offering for sale, in commerce, or the processing for commerce, of fur products; or in connection with the selling, advertising, offering' for sale, or processing of fur products which have been shipped and received in commerce, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding fur products by substituting for the labels afed to such fur products pursuant to Section 4 of the Fur Products Labeling Act labels which do not conform to the requirements of the aforesaid Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. It is further ordered That the recpondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, fie with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order. 58S FEDERAL TRADE CQ:\DIIS:S'ION DECISIOXS Complaint 63 F.