Furs by Raben of Clayton

Text (OCR of the scan; may contain errors)

Par. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely or deceptively identified with respect to the name of the country of origin of furs contained in such fur products, in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products labeled to show the country of origin of furs used in such fur products as the United States when in fact the furs used in such fur products were imported.

Par. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely or 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 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products labeled as “Broadtail” thereby implying that the furs contained therein were entitled to the designation “Broadtail Lamb” when in truth and in fact they were not entitled to. such designation.

Par. 5. 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 certain fur products without labels and certain fur products with labels which failed:

1. 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, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

3. To show the name, or other identification issued and registered by the Commission, of one or more of the persons who manufactured such fur product for introduction into commerce, introduced it into commerce, sold it in commerce, advertised or offered it for sale, in commerce, or transported or distributed it in commerce.

4. To show the country of origin of the imported furs contained in the fur product.

Par. 6. 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 on labels in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The term “Persian Lamb” was not set forth on labels in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 8 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) 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.

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

(e) The disclosure that fur products were composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, sides, flanks, gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap pieces or waste fur where required was not set forth on labels in violation of Rule 20 of said Rules and Regulations.

(f) Labels affixed to fur products did not comply with the minimum size requirements of one and three-quarter inches by two and three-quarter inches, in violation of Rule 27 of said Rules and Regulations.

(g) 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.

(h) Information required under 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 80 of said Rules and Regulations.

(i) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth separately on labels 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 Regulations.

(j) Required item numbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondent 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 disclose that the fur contained in the fur product. was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

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

Par. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that respondent set forth on invoices pertaining to fur products the name of an animal other than the name of the animal 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 falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products which were invoiced as “Broadtail” thereby implying that the furs contained therein were entitled to the designation “Broadtail Lamb” when in truth and in fact they were not entitled to such designation.

Par. 9. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced with respect to the name of the country of origin of imported furs used in such fur 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 of origin of furs contained in such fur products as the United States when in fact the furs used in such fur products were imported.

Par. 10. 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) Information required under Section 5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth on invoices in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) 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.

224-069—70-—16

(c) The term “Dyed Mouton Lamb” was not set forth on invoices in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 9 of said Rules and Regulations.

(d) 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.

(e) 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(g) of said Rules and Regulations.

(f) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 11. 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 advertisements of respondent which appeared in issues of the St. Louis County Observer, a newspaper published in the State of Missouri.

Among such false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements which failed:

1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product.

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

Par. 12. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that certain of said advertisements contained the name or names of an animal or animals other than those producing the fur contained in the fur product, in violation of Section 5(a)(5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Par. 13. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondent 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) The term “Persian Lamb” was not set forth in the manner required, in violation of Rule 8 of the said Rules and Regulations.

(b) 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. 14. In advertising fur products for sale, as aforesaid, respondent 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. Respondent 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 the said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 15. Respondent in introducing, selling, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and processing for commerce, fur products; and in selling, advertising, offering for sale and processing fur products which have been shipped and received in commerce, has 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 affixed to said fur products by the manufacturer or distributor pursuant to Section 4 of said Act, in violation of Section 3(e) of said Act.

Par. 16. 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 AND 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 Act, and the respondent 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 respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondent 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 respondent 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 Abraham Raben also known as Al Raben is an individual trading as Furs by Raben of Clayton, with his office and principal place of business located at 920 South Brentwood, Clayton, Missouri.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER

It is ordered, That respondent Abraham Raben, otherwise known as A] Raben, an individual, trading as Furs by Raben of Clayton, or under any other trade name, and respondent's 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 commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce, of any fur product; or in connection with the manufacture for sale, 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 the terms “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 any such fur product as to the country of origin of furs contained in such fur product.

2. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying any such fur product. as to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product.

3. Failing to affix labels to fur products showing in. words and in figures plainly legible all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

4. Setting forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form on labels affixed to fur products.

Order

5. Failing to set forth the term “Persian Lamb” on labels in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the word “Lamb”.

6. Failing to set forth the term “Dyed Broadtailprocessed Lamb” on labels in the manner required where an election is made to use that term in lieu of the term “Dyed Lamb”.

7. Failing to set forth the term “Natural” as part of the information required to be disclosed on labels under 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.

8. Failing to disclose on labels that fur products are composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, sides, flanks, gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap pieces or waste fur.

9. Affixing to fur products labels that do not comply with the minimum size requirements of one and _ threequarters inches by two and three-quarters inches.

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

11. 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 Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

12. Failing to set forth separately on labels attached to fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal fur the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to the fur comprising each section.

18. 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 in each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. | Order: 64 F.T.C.

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 contained in such fur product.

3. Misrepresenting in any manner, directly or by implication, the country of origin of the fur contained in fur products.

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

5. 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”.

6. Failing to set forth the term “Dyed Mouton Lamb” in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words “Dyed Lamb”.

7. 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”.

8. 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 promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

9. 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. Sets forth the name or names of any animal or animals other than the name of the animal producing the furs contained in the fur product as specified in the Fur Products Name Guide, and as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations.

3. Fails 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”,

4. Fails to set forth the term “Natural” as part of the information required to be disclosed in advertisements under 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 Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act unless there are maintained by respondent full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based. lt is further ordered, That Abraham Raben, also known as Al Raben, an individual trading as Furs by Raben of Clayton, or under any other trade name and respondent’s 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 label affixed to such fur products pursuant to Section + 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 ts further ordered, That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon him of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he has complied with this order. — .