The Mode LTD.

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

IN Tile T\iA TTER OF THE MODE LTD., ET AL.

COSSEX'!, ORDER ETC. IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF TUE FEDER\L TRADE CO::DrISSION AXD THE FDR PRODDCTS LABELI G ACTS Docket 0-593. Complaint, Sept. 20, 1DG3-Decision, Sept. 20, 1963 Consent order relluiring retail furriers in Boise, Idaho, to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by representing falsely on labels and in ad- "ertising that prices of fur products were reduced from so-ca.lled regular prices which were fictitious; oy invoicing furs deceptively iS "Rro2.dtail" and failing to show all iuyoices the true animal name of furs, and to set forth the term "Broadtail Lamb" a;. required: by advertising ' which failed to describe as " natural", fm's which were not artificially colored; and by failng in other re.'3pects to comply with rerluirernents of the Act. IPLAIXT Pu::.'suant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act md tho Fur Proc1acts Labeling Act and by virtue of the a.authority ested in it by said Acts, tho Federal Trade Commission having rcl1son t.o beliel' e that The :;Ioc1e Ltd., a. corporation, and Ethel C. Chapman Albert:, S. R.ice and :?far1c ::Uantz, individually and as offcers of sa.id corporation, hereinafter referred to as re:-pondents have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rnles and Heglllations promulgated , Complaint 63 F.

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 inte.rest, hereby issues its complaint stat.ing its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGHAPII 1. Respondent The :LHode Ltd., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the la-\Ys of the State of Idaho.

Respondents Ethel C. Chapman, Albert S. nice and Marie Mautz are offcers 'Of the corporate respondent and formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respond. ent including those hereinafter set forth. Respondents are retailers of fur products with their offce and prin. cipal place of business located at 802 Idaho Street, Boise, Idaho. PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Label. ing 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 ior 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 teTIns "c011111erce fur" and " fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that labels affmd tho,1'eto represented that prices of fur products had been reduced from regular or usual prices of such fur products and that t.he a.mount of such reductions constituted savings to purchasers when the so-called regulax or usual1 prices were in fa,ct 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 falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondent in that they were not invoiced as requirpd by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the rules nncl R,egulations promulgated under such Act. Among such. ialselyand deceptively invoiced fur products, but 110t limited thereto, were fur products covered by invoices which fa,filed to show the true animal nilme of the fur used in the fur product.

PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced with respect to the name or designation of the animal or a.animals that produced t.he fur from 'which the said fur products had THE :vIODE LTD. , ET AL. 805 803 Complaint been manufactured, in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited t.hereto, were fur products which were invoiced as "Broadtail" thereby implying that the furs contained therein were entitled to the designation "Broadtail Lamb" when in trtth and in fact they were not entitled to such designations.

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 pro. mulgated thereunder in the following respects: a. Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Prod. ucts Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated there. under was set forth on invoices in abbreviated form, in violation Rule 4 of said Rules and Reguhltions.

b. The term "Broadtail Lamb" was not set forth on invoices in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 7. Certain of said fur products "ere falsely and deceptively advertised in viohtion of the Fur Products Laheling Act in that certain advertisements intended to aid, promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sa.le and offering for sale of such fur products we.re not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 (a) of the said Act.

By means of the aforesaid ndvcrtise1llents and others of similar import and meaning not. specifically referred to herein, respondents falselr and deceptively advertised fur products in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that the sa,id fur products -were not adyertised in accordance with the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder in that the term "natural" was not used to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip.dyed or other. wise artificially colored, in viohttion of Rule 19(9) of the said Rules aud Regulations.

PAR. 8. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and other aelver. tisements 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 were reduced from regular or usual reta.il 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 they were not the prices at which said merchandise "as usually sold by respondents in the recent regular course 780-01S-6D- ,\ 806 FEDERAL 1'HADE COJlOIISSION DECISIONS Complaint 63 F.

of business and the representeel savings "\ere not thereby afforded to the purchasers, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products J,labeling Act and Rule 44(a) of the Rules andl\egulations promul. gated under the said Act.

PAIL 8. By means of the aforesaid a.advertisements and others of similar,r import and 111caning not specifically referred to herein respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products iu that the said advertisements, either directly or by implication, represented through statements such as "XCTU::\iN l' SALE , that the prices of such fur products were reduced fl'0111 the prices at which the respondents regularly and usually sold such fur products in the recent reguhLT course of business and the amount of such purported reduction constituted savings to the purchasers of respondents' products, \vhen in fact such fur products were not reduced in price from the prices at which the respondents regularly and usually sold such fur products and savings -were not afforded purchasers of respondents products as represented, in viobtion of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 10. l\respondents falsely and deceptivcJy advertised fur proel. ucts in vioJatioll of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act 'by affxing labels to such fur products which contained fictitious prices and misrepresented the regular retail sening prices of such fur products in that the prices represented on such labels as the reguxcess of the retail prices a-t lal' prices of such fur products ,were in e, which respondents regularly a.nd usually sold such fur products in the recent regular course of business.

\R. 11. Respondent.s falsely and deceptively advertised fur products by affxing labels thereto which represented that prices 'Of such such fur produc1 shad been reduced from regulat or usual prices of products and t.hat the amount. of such reductions constituted savings to purchasers when the so-caned regular or usual prices ,were in fact fictitious in that they ,were not the prices at ,\'which said merchandise as usually sold by respondents in the recent regular course of bU8ine ;s l1nc1 the. r pre5entec1 savings 'There not thereby afforded to pur Ghasers in yiobtion of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act ancl Rule. :J4(a) of the Rules and R.egulations. \R. 12.. The aforesaid acts and prftctices of 1'espondents as herein dlegec1 ale in Y101atlon of the :F'Ul' Products Labeling Act and the Rule:) ;mc1 HegubtiollS promulgated thereunder and const.itute unfair nlCl drcepti' e nets a:ac1 practices anc1l1ufair methods of competition in commN' C8 under the Federal Trade Commjsslon Act. THE ldODE- LTD. ) E'r AL. 807 803 Decision and Order DECISION AND ORDER The COlmnission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint cha.rging the respondents named in the caption herenf with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondents having been ::ervecl with notice of said determination and with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together with a proposed fornl of order; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement conta,ining 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 rules; and The Commission, having considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its cum plaint in the form contemplated by said agreement makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent The Mode Ltd., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue 'Of the laws of the State Idaho, with its offce and principal place of business located at 802 I,bho Street, Boise, Idaho.

Respondents Ethel C. Chapman, Albert S. Rice and Marie Mantz Hlo oiEcel's of silicl corporation, a.nc1 their address is the same as that of said corporation.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matrer of this proceeding and of the n spondents, a,nel the proceeding in the public interest.

OUDEn It is o'ldeT'cd That respondents The 1Ioc1e Ltd., a corporation, and its officers, and Ethel C. Clwpman, Albert S. Rice ami Marie :lIantz individually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents' repl'p,s(' ntat1v2S , agents fL11c1l'mployees, directly or through any corporate 01' o\ho1' device, in connection \Tlt.h the introduction, into commerce or the sale, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportat.ion or dist.ribution in commerce, of any fur product; 01' in connrct.ioll with t.he sale" nclvel'tising, ouering for sale, transportation OJ' c1i ,jribution, 01' any fur product which is made in whole or in part. 01 f\!r '.vh ch bns been shi.pped nd received in commerce as "C011- , 808 Federal.l TRADE co?-nnssIO DECISIO::S Decision and Oedc-r G3 F.

meree fur" and " fur produce' are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: A. 1Iisbmnding 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 price in the recent past.

2. :'Iisrepresenting in any manner on labels or other means of identification the savings available to purchasers of re,spondent.s' products.

3. Falsely or deceptively representing in any manner directly or by implication, on la,bels or other means OT 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 l'roducts Labeling Act. 2; Setting forth on invoices pertaining to fur products any false or deceptive information with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur ccntc.ined in such fur product.

3. Setting forth information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act gnc1 the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

4. Failing to set forth the term "Broadtail Lamb" in tho manner required where an election is made to use that term inste.ad of the word "Lamb"

C. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, representat.ion, public announcement or notice which is intencleu to Rid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale, or offering for saJe of any fur product and ivhich:

1. Fails to set forth the term "Natural" as part of the informaUon required to be disclosed in advertisements under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regula. tions promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which NATIONAL CELLULOSE I SULATION MFR. ASSOC., I , ET AL. 809 803 Coruplnint are not pointcd, blcachcd, dyed, tip.dyed or' otherwise arti. ficially colored.

2. Represents, directly or by implication, that any price when accompanied or una.accompanied by ,any descriptive la,nguage. was the price at which the merchandise advertised was usual1ly and customarily sold at Tetail by the respondents unless such advertised merchandise was in fact usually and custonnrily sold at retail at such price by respondents in the recent p a-st.

3. J\Iisrepresents in any manner the savings available to purchasers of respondents fur products.

'1. Falsely or deceptively represents in any mail er that prices of respondents' fur products are reduced. It .i8 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.