The Prager Company trading as Prager Brush Company

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

flnd fo1'nl in which they have complied with this order. Ix T1-1E l\Lvrn:r: OF THE PRAGER COMPANY TRADING AS PIL,,GER BRUSH COMPANY El' AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDETIM, TTIADF. CO-:fllfISSTOX ACT Docket 0-637. Complal:nt, Dec. 196B-Decision, Dec. 27, 1963 Consent order requiring Atlanta, Ga. , manufacturers of paint and varnish brushes and other products, to cease sellng brushes with no disclosure of the fact that they were composed of bristles which bad beenpreYiously ,:sed; stamping tbe handles of certain brushes with the words "Contains 2058 FEDERAL TRADE CO:\JMISSION" DECISIO Complaint 63 F, CHINA 100% Pure Bristle, when the brushing part was made in substantial part of bristle from other sources; and sellng brushes without revealing that the brushing part of some of them contained other material simulating bristle along with the bristle. COJIPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that The Prager Company, a corporation trading and doing business as Prager Brush Company, and Hans E. Prager, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said 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 stat.ing its charges in that respect as follows:

PAIUCldPIi 1. Respondent The Prager Company is a corpor ltjon organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the Slate of Georgia, with its principal offee and place of business located at 35,) Ylarietta Street N.vY., in the City of ,'.tl"nl" State of Georgia. Said corporation trades and does business under the name Prager Brush Company.

Respondent I-Iam: E. Prager is an offcer of the. corporate J:e pon(lonto I-Ie formulates, directs and controls the acts and practices of the corporate respondent, including the acts and practices hereinafter set forth. Ilis clcldress is the same as that of the corporate respondent.

PAR. 2. Respondents are now, and for some time last past have been, engaged in the manufacture, advertising, oif'crjng for sale, sale and distribution of paint and varnish brushes and other products to distributors and retajlers for resale to the public. PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents no\\ C:1l1se, and for some time last past have caused, t.their said products, when sold, to be shipped from their place of business in the State of Georgja to purchasers thereof located in various other States of the United States, and maintain, and at flu times mentioned herein have maintained, a substantinJ course of trade in sa,id products in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commis3ion Act, PAIL 4. Respondents: for the purpose of inducing the purchase of tin OTtheir products have misrepresented the materials of which cert PHAGER BR1;SH CO JPAl''Y ET AL. 2059 2057 Complaint their brushes are made or composed by the following methods and means:

(1) The brushing part of certain of respondents' brushes is composed in whole or in part of hog or 8,vine bristle (hereinafter refelted to as bristle) which has been previously used and no disclosure of that fact is made in advertising and on invoices or on said brushes. By fa.filing to make such disclosure, respondents represent, directly or by implication, that the brushing part of such brushes is made or composed wholly of new bristle. In truth and in fact, the brushing part of respondents' said brushes is made or composed in whole or in part of previously used bristle, Such bristle has the appearance of new bristle and, in the absence of any disclosure to the contrary, respondents' said brushes ate readily acc.epted by members of the purchasing pubhc as having brushing parts made wholly of new bristle a fact of which the Commission takes offcial notice. There is a preference among the purchasing public for paint brushes leaving a brushing part made wholly of new bristle as contrasted with pa.int brushes having a. ol'ushing part made. in ,whole or in part of previously used bristle, a fact of which the Commission takes offcial notice. (2) The handles or ferrules of certain of respondents' brushes are marked or stamped with the words "Contains CHINA 100% Pme Bristle . Respondent.s t.hereby represent, directly or by implic.a.tion that. the brushing part of said brushes is composed entirely of bristle imported from China. In truth and in fact, the brushing part of re. spondents' said brushes is made in substantial part of bristle obtained from other sources.

(3) Certain of respondents' said brushes have a brushing part consisting of bristle and some other material which simulates the appearance of bristle. Respondents thereby represent, directly or by implica. tion, that the brushing part of such brushes is made wholly of bristle, In truth and in fact, the brushing part of respondents' said brushes is made of a mixture or combination of bristle and other materials. In the absence of any disclosure to the contrary, respondents' said brushes are readily accepted by members of the purchasing public as have brushing parts made wholly of bristle, a fact of which the Commission takes offcial notice. There is a preference among members of the purchasing public for brushes having a brushing part made wholly of bristle as contrasted ,with brushes having a brushing part made of a mixture or combination of bristle and other materials, a fact of which the Commission tckcs official notice, Therefore, the aforesaid statements and representations were and are false: misleading and deceptive.

2060 FEDERAL TRADE C01-IMISSION DECISIONS Ded.";ion and Order 63 F, PAR, 5, By the aforesaid practices, respondents place in the hands of retailers the means and instrumentalities by and through which t.hey may mislead t.he public as to t.he quality.y and composit.ion of said brushes and as to the country of origin of the bristle of which the brushi ng part of said brushes is made.

'ln. 6. In the conduct of their business, at all times mentioned herein, respondents have been in substantial competition, in commerce with corporations, firms and individuals engaged in the sale of products of the same general kind and nature as those sold by respondents. Pall 7, The use by respondents of the aforesaid false, misleading and deceptive statements, representations and practices has had, and no" has, the ea pacity and tendency to mislead lle1nbers oT the purchasing public into the erroneous and lnistaken belief that said statements and representatjons were and are true and into the purchase of substantial quantities of respondents' products by reason of said errone.ous and mistaken belief PAR. 8. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, were and arc all t.o the prejudice and injury of the pubhc and of re pondents competitors and constituted, and now constitute, unfair methods of competition in commerce and unfair and deceptive acts flll(l practices in commerce, in violat.ion of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION AND GRUER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof with violation of the :Fe,cleral Trade Commission 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 otc1er; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter exe,cuted an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to i sue herein, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by re.spondents that the law has been violated as set forth in such compbinL and waivers and prO'Tisions as required by the Commission Tules; and The Commission, having considered the agreement, hereby accepts snme issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement PRAGEH BHcSH CO ,Y ET AL. 2061 2057 Decision and Order makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent The Prager Company is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Georgia, with its offce and principal place of business located at 355 Marietta Street \N" in the city of Atlanta, State of Georgia. Said corporation trades and does business under the name of Prager Brush Company.

Respondent IIans E. Prager is an offcer of said corporation, and his address is the same as that of said corporation. 2, The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the suhject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the puhlic interest, ORDER It i8 ordered That respondents The Prager Company, a corporation, trading and doing business as Prager Brush Company, or under any other name or names, and JIan8 E. Prager, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, and respondents' agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of paint and varnish brushes or other products, in commerce, as "commerce :' is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

(1) Offering for sale or selling brushes having a hrushing part composed in whole or in part of bristle of the hog or swine or any other material which has been previously used without clearly disclosing such fact in advert.ising and sales promotional material and all invoices and other sales memoranda and by means or a legible marking or stamping on the handle or rerrule of such brushes or such size, conspicuousness and degree or permanency, as to be noticeable and readable upon casual inspection when the brush is offered for sale to consumer purchasers. (2) Using the ,vord "China:' or any other word or words or similar import or meaning, either alone or in conjuetion with other words, to designate or describe or refer to bristle of the hog or s ine 1\ hjch is not imported from China, or otherwise misrepresenting the origin or the bristle of which the brushing part of respondents' brushes is made or composed. (3) Offering for sale or selling hrushes having a brushing part composed in part of bristle or t.he hog or swine and in part or 2062 FEDERAL TRADE CO IMISSION DECISIONS Complaint 63 P.

material other than such bristle but ,,,hieh has the appearance of bristle without truthfully describing, in the order of their predominance, all constituent materials by means of a legible marking or stamping on the handle or ferrule of the brush of such size, conspicuousness and degree of permanency as to be noticeable and reac1able upon casual inspection when the brush is oilcred for sale to consumer purchasers. (4) Placing in the hands of others the means or instrumentalities whereby they may mislead the public as to any of the matters or things prohibited in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 hereof. 1 t is f"rthe,. 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 fort.h in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order. IN THE j)L-\ TTER OF HARRY HTTT TTIADI"O AS HA1Uty HTTTT FT CO, cox SENT ORDER , ETC., I REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERi\.L TR.-\DE COl\IlUSSION AXD 'II-IE :FUR rnODUCTS LABELlXG ACTS Doc7(et C-638. Comp7aint, Dec. 2"/ 19G3-Deets' ion, Dec. 2" , 1963 Consent order requiring manufacturing furriers in Xew York Cit:v, to cease violating tbe Fur Products Labeling Act by failng to show, on labels and invoices, the true animal name of furs; to disclose. on labels, when fur was artificially colored and to identify tlle manufacturer, etc. ; to sl1ow on invoices, when fur products contained used fur and the country of origin of imported furs; to set forth the terms "Pcrsiau Lamb" , on labels. and invoices, and "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb", on invoices; invoicing d:ved rabbit as " Cone;)' '' and " Scaline; and failng to comply in other respects with labeling and invoicing rerluirements. 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 Harry Hutt, an individual trading as Harry Hutt Fur Co., hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Hegulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling \ct, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public in- , HAHRY HUTI' FL"R CO. 2063 2062 Complaint terest hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

\IL\GRAPH 1. Respondent l-IRrry Hutt is an individual trading as Harry Hutt Fur Co. Said respondent is a retail fnrrier with his offce and principal place of business located at 307 Seventh A venue Kew York, New York.

PAR, 2, Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondent has been and is now engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in the manufacture for introduction into commerce, and in the sale, advertising, and offering for sale jn commerce, and in the transportation and distribution in commerce, of fur products, and has manufactured for sale, sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or 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 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 without labels and fur products with labels which failed:

I. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product. 2, To disclose that the fur contained in the fur product was bleached dyed, 01' otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact. 3. To show the name, or other identification issued and registered by the COlmnission, of one or more of the persons vho manufactured such fur product for introduction into commerce introduced it into commerce, sold it in con1l11erce, or transported or distributed it commerce..

Pj\R. 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 Hegnlations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

1, Information required under Seetion 4(2) of the Fur Products La beling Act and the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder was set forth on labels in abbreviated form, in volation of Rule 4 of said H111es and Regulations.

. The term "Persian Lamb" was not set forth on labels in the 1lR111Wr required by l, in violation of Rule 8 of said Hules and Reg-uJ:ltions.

, 2064 FEDERAL TRADE COl\I1YIISSION DECISIO Complaint 63 F, 3, 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, 4. Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rnles and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth separately on labels with respect to each section of fut products composed of two or 11101'e sections containing different animal furs, in violation of Rule 36 of said Rules and Regubtions, 5, 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 under such Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto were fur products covered by invoices which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product. 2, To show that the fur product contained or was composed of used fnr, when such was the fact.

3. To show the country of origin of imported furs used in fur prod uets.

PAR, G, Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptinly invoiced with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which the said fur products had been nmnufactured, in violation of Seetion 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such fa.lsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, bur not limited thereto, ,vels fur products vd1ich were invoiced as ;: Coney and "8engine, respcctively when, in fa. , the fur containeel in such products was dyed mbbit, PAR. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and decepriyely 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: 1. Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the R.ules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth on invoices in abbreviated form, in violation of ule 4 of said Rules ancl Regulations.

2. The term "Persian Lamb:' was not set forth on invoices in. the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 8 of said Rules and Regulations, ) , HAHRY HlTTT FUR CO. 2065 2062 lJeeisiun and Oruer 3. 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.

"1. The disclosure "second-hand" where required was not set forth all invoices, in violation of Rule 23 of said Rules and Regulations. 5, Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Prod. ucts Labeling . et and the Rules and Regulations promulgated there. under "was not set forth separately on invoices with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs, in violation of Rule 36 of said Rules and Hcgulations.

G. R.equired item numbers "were not set forth on invoices in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations, PAll. 8. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent, as herein alleged, are in violation of thc 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 respondent named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling , and the respondent having been served with notice of said determinat.ion and with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together \"ith a proposed form of order; and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondent of all thc jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to issue herein, a statement that the signing of said agree.ment is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent that the law has been violated as set forth in such complaint, and Iyaivers and provisions as required by the Commission rules; and The Comlnission, having considered the agreement, hereby a,ccepts sa, , issues its corn plaint in the fort11 contemplated by said agreemen t. makes the following j llrisc1ictionaJ findings, and enters the 1'01- Imying order:

J. Respondent l:liLrry H utt is an individual trading as J-Iarry TIutt Fur Co. and has his offce and principal place of business at 307 oSeyemh A\' enue, Xew York, Ne\y York.

, Decision and Order G3 F, 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the sabject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent, and the proceeding is in the public interest, ORDER It ,is ordered That respondent Harry Hutt, an individual, trading as I-Iarry Hutt Fur Co., or unuer a,ny other trade HalnC, and respondcnes representatives: agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, or manufacture for introduction, into commerce, or the sale; advertising or offering for sale in C0111nC1'Ce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce, of a,ny fur -product, or in connection with the mflnuf,lcture for sale, sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution, of any fur produc.t which is made in whole or in part of fur ,,-which has been shipped and received in commerce, as the rerms commerce fur" and "fur product are delined in the 11 ur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1, Misbranding fur products by:

A. F::doing to affx Jabels to fur product,s showing in ,\words and figures plajnl legible a11 the information required to be disclosed by each of the. subsectiuns of Section 4: i)) the Fur Produds Labeling Act.

B. Setting forth on labels affxed to fm' products information required under Section 4- (2) of the Fur Products Labeling .Act and the Hllles and Regulations promulgated t11E'reunder in abbreviated form.

C. Setting forth onlabe!s affxed to fur products information required under Section 4.(2) of the Fur Products Labeling A,et and the Hules and H,egulations thereunder in handwriting.

D. Failing to set fort.h the term "Persian Lamb" on labels in the manner required 'iyhere an election is made to use that term instead of the word "Lamb"

E. Fn;filing io set forth separately on In.beIs attached,d to fur products composed of two or more sections conta.thing different animal fur the inf.formation required under-r Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgat.ed thereunder with respect to the fur comprising each section.

F, Failing to set forth on labels the item numb"r or marks assigned to n. fui" product.

ADELE FASHIOXS , INC., ET AL. 2067 2062 Syllllbu 2. 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 requh'ecl to be disclosed in each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling' Act. B. Setting forth on invoices pertaining to fur products any false and deceptive information with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in sneh fur product.

C. Setting forth information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated fonn. D. Failing to set forth the term "Persian Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that ter111 instead of the word "Lamb' E. 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" F. Failing to disclose that fur products contain or are composed of second-hand used fur.

G, Failing to set forth sepaTa!ely information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act nncl t.he 11n1e8 and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect ,*0 each section of fur products composed of t1YO or more sections containing different. animal fUTs. H. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned lto fur products.

, within I t is further ordered That the respondent herein shall sixty (60) days after service upon him of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner