Crown Furs, Inc., et al.

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

and form in which they have complied with this order. Ix TI-IE J\IATTER OF CROW Fl'ES , IXC., 1:1' AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REG..ARD TO THE ALLEGED VIQL\TION OF THE :FEDERAL TRADE COl\:\I1Sslon A:,m Tile YUR PROD"LCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-697. Complaint, Jan. 1964.-Decisioil, ,Jan. , 1964 Consent order requiring retail furriers in Xew York City to cease violating the l-ur Products LabeliIJg Act by misbranding-, falsely invoicing and advertising their fur lJl'odncts. and substituting 1l01lconformiJJg labels for the labels affxed to fur pruducts by mallufacturers. CO:MrLAINT Pursuant t.o the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by sa,id Acts: the Federal Trade Commission ha.ving rea- 466 FEDERAL TRADE CO:\IMISSIOX DECISIO Cumplaint 64 F.

son to believe that Crown Furs Inc. , a corporation, and David )'1 Weiss, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have viohtted 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 int.erest" hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Crown Furs Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Illnois.

Respondent David :M. ",Veiss is an oilcer of the corporate respondent and formulates, directs, and c.ontrols the acts, practices, and policies of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth.

Proposed Respondents are retailers of fur products with their offce and principal place of business located at 130 ,Vest 30th Street New York, New York.

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 ha,ve been made in -whole, or in part of furs ,which have been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms "commerce, "fur and "fur produce' are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAIL 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in t.hat they were not labeled a.s required under' the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products LRbeling Act and in the manner and form proscribed by the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto were fur products with labels which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product.

2. To show the name, or other identification issued and legisered by the Commission, of one or lnore of the persons \yho Inflll11facturecl such fur product for introduction into comme.ree, introduced it into commerce, sold it in cOJmnerce: aclYertised or offered it for sale, in commerce, or transporteel or dist.ributed it in commerce. PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products "-ere misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling .-\ct in that they were not labeled in CROW" FURS , INC. . ET AL. 467 465 Complaint 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.

1labels to describe fur (b) The term "natural" was not used on products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules 2.nd Regulations.

(c) Labels affxed 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.

(el) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was mingled with nonrequired information, in violation of Rule 29 (a) of said Rules and Hegulations. (e) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not completely set out on one side of labels, in violation of Rule 29(a) of said Rules and Regulations. (f) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Produets 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 Hegulations.

(g) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Ad and t.he Rules and Heglllations promulgated thereunder \Va,s not set forth in the required sequence" in violation of Rule 30 (h)of saidInformationRules and requiredRegulations.under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Hegulations promulgated therelmder T\a.s 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 Hule 36 of sa.ic1 Rules and Regulations.

(i) Req,uired item numbers were not set forth on labels, in VlOlotion of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. D. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively ill"'ioicecl by the respondent in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the I ules and Regulations promulgated under such Act. 468 FEDERAL TRADE CO:'I,L"VlISSION DECISIONS Complaint 64 F.

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 311mv the country or origin of imported furs used in Iur products.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced with respect to t.he name or designation or 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 falsely and deceptively invoiced rnr products, but not limited thereto, were fur products which.h were invoieecl as Broadtail" thereby implying that the furs contained therein were entitled to t.he designation " Broadtail La, ' when in truth and jn fact they were not entitled to such designations. PAR. 7. Certain of said fur products "ere falsely and deceptively invoiced with respect to the name of the country or 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 eontainecl in such fur products as the United States when in truth and in fact the furs used in such fur products were imported.

'R. 8. 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 t.hereunder ,vas set forth on invoices in abbreviated form, in, iolation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations. (b) The term "Dyed Broadtail processed Lamb: was Hot set forth on invoices in the manner required by In w, in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) The term "natural" was not used on invoices to describe fur products ,which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip- dyed 01' other1'- "ise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of saiel Hnlee and Regulations.

, . , \ CROWN Furs, IJ\ ) ET AL. 469 465 Complaint (d) Required item numbers ,were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said TInles and Hegulations. PAR. 9. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act iu that certain advertisements intended to aiel, 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.

unong and included in the aforesaid advertisements but not limited thereto were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the Chicago Tribune, a newspaper published in the city of Chicago, State of Illinois.

Among such false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements which fa.filed: 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. S. To show the country of origin of imported furs contained in fur p1 oclucts.

\R. 10. 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 that certain of said fur products were falsely or deceptively identified with respect to the name or designation of the animal or a,nimnJs that produced the fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such falsely and deceptively nclvertised fur products, but not limited thereto, ,were fur products advertised as "Broadtail Lamb' when in truth and in fact they ,were not entitled to such designa tion.

\H. 11. In advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid respondents represented through such statements as ';'\Vonderful onderful tJalluary Buys at JubiJant Savings of 1/1 to 1f2 and Iore " that prices of fur products 'rere reduced in direct proportion to the percentages stated and that the amount of said reduction afrordcc1 sayings to the purchasers of respondents' products \Yhen in fact such prices Tle.re not reduced in direct proportion 10 the percentages stated and the represented savings \Were not thercby a.forded to the said purchasers, in violation of Section 5(a.) (5) of the Fur Prodacts Labeling Act.

\R. 12. In advertising fur products for sale, as aforesaid, responclents Inade pricing claims and representations of the types 470 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIOXS Decision 64 F.

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 the said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 13. 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 R,regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required, in violation of Hule 10 of the said Rules and Regulatione.

(b) The term "natural" was not used to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwi artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of the said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 14. Respondents in introducing, selling, advertising, and offering' for sale, in commerce, and in processing for commerce, fur products; and ill 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 by the manufacturer or distributor pursuant to Section '* 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 comlnerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. DECI !(X -\KD ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its Collplaint cha.rging 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 ,,-ith notice of said determination and with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together "\with a. proposed form of order; and , CIWW:- FURS , I:-C. , ET AL. 471 465 Order The respondents and counsel for the Commission having there after 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 saiel agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Crown Furs, Inc., is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of illinois, with its office and principal place of business located at 130 IV est 30th Street, X ew York, X ew York. Respondent David :r'1. 'Yeiss is an officer of sn, ic1 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 t.he public interest.

ORDER It is ordered That respondents Crown Furs, Inc. , a corporatioll and its offcers, and David :rr. 'Veiss, individually and as an oflicer 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, advertising 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, tra,nsportation 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. Failing to affx 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 4 (2) of the Fur Prod uets Labeling Act.

2. Setting forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and 472 FEDERAL TRADE CO:\D.lISSIOX DECISIONS Order G4 F.

Regulations promulgated thereunder hl abbreYlatec1 form on labels affxed to fur products.

3. 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 thcreunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

4. Affxing to fur products labels that do not comply with the minimum size req,uirements of one and threequarters inches by t\yo and three- quartcrs inches. 5. Setting forth information required under' Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled with nonrequired information on labels affxed to fur products. o. Failing to completely set out information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labe1iug Act and ihe Rules and Regulations thercul1ller 011 one side of the labels affxed to fur products.

7. 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 affxed to fur products.

8. Failing to set forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling 'ct and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thc1'8Ullller on labels in the sequence required by Hule. 30 of the a fOl'esa.ic1 Hules ilnd He,auln.tions.

9. Failing to set forth separately on labels attach d to fur products composed of t\fO or more sections conUl:luillg different animal fur the information rec1l1irec1 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.

10. Fa.filing to set forth on Inbels the item number or mark ftssigned to a. fur product.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Fa,filing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products sholTing in \lords a,nd 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. CHOWN Furs! INC. , ET AL. 473 46.i Order 2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing any fur prouuct with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in such fur prouuct. 3. Misrepresenting in any manner, directly or by implication, the country of origin of the fur contained in the fur products.

4. Setting forth information req,uired 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 "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" in the manner required where an ejection is made to use that term instead of the words "Dyed Lamb" 6. Failing to set forth the term "Natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on in voices under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Hegulations promulgated thcreunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artifieially colored.

7. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to fur prod uets.

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 Ful' Products Labeling Act.

2. Falsely or deceptively identifies any such fur product as to the. name or designation of the animal or animals that produced t.he fur contained in the fur product. 3. Fails (0 set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made t.o use that term instead of the words "Dyed Lamb" 4. Fnils to set forth the term "X atul'nr: as part of the information required to be disclosed in advertisements uncler the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Hegulations promnlgated thereunder to describe fur prod- ::::4- f1GD- 70- ::1 474 FEDERAL TRADE COM:vISSION DECISIONS Order 64 F.

, tip-dyed or l1ets which are not pointed, bleached, dyed other,, ise artificially colored.

5. 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.

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

7. Falsely or deceptively represents in any manner that covered D.prices::'fakingof respondentsclaims and: representationsfur products are ofreduced.the types by subsections (a), (b), (e) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations prolluJgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act unless there are maintained by respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such cbims and representations are based.

It is further ordered That respondents Crown Furs, Inc. , a corporation, and its offcers, and David M:. \Veiss, individually and as an offcer of said corporation and respondents: reprcsentflth- , 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; , oror in connection with the selling, advertising, otrering for sale processing of fur products ,,,which have been shipped a,nd received in commerce, do forthwith cease and desist from: A. :Misbranding fur products by substituting for the labels affxed 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 Eeguhltions promulgated thereunder.

It i8 fuy.ther o1'dered 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 det.ail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order. JACK SOMMERS 475 Complaint Ix THE J\L\TTER OF JACK SO:VIMERS SENT ORDER, I':TC., IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOL-\TION OF THE FEDERAL TR-\DE COl\nrrSSION AXD THE F1Dl PRODL"CTS L\BELING ACTS Docket C-698. Comp7,aiut, Jan. 1964--Decisioll, Jan. , 1964. Consent order l'e(luil'ing a retailer of flll' pro(lucts, former prc::idem of a dissolverl corporation, in Xe\v York City, to CPf!se viola ting the Fur Plo(lncts Labeling )..('t. by failing in in,oicing am! advertising' 10 show tJle true alJimal name of fur and to lli:P the term "Xaturnl" for furs that "-ere nut bleached or (1yed: failng to show, on invoices, whcll furs \were artificially colored and the country of origin of imported(l furs, and using the term ;;Broacltail' improperly; iI1Yoicillg furs falsely with regard to the name of the producing animal and miming the Cnited States as the country of origin of imported furs: in newspaper ac1wrtising, falsely repre,senting fur products on sale as part. of thp regular stock of Jay-Thol'fJC an(l as ;' OYER $500 000 WORTH" and failng to keep adequate records as a basis for pricing claims. CO?II'L" \1 XT 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 .Jack Sommers, individually a.nd as a. former offcer of J ay- Thorpe Inc., a dissolved corporation hereinafter referred to as respondent has violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rule.s and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect t.hereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Jack Sommers was president of .J ay- Thorpe Inc., a dissolved corporation and participated in the formulation, direction and control of the acts, practices and policies of thesaid corporation including those hereinafter set forth. Jay-Thorpe Inc., a dissolved corporation was a retailer of fur products with its offce and principal place of business located at 24 West 57th Street ew York ew York. The address of respondent Jack Sommers was the same as that of J "y- Thorpe Inc., a dissolved corporation.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to t.he ef!'active date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondent has been engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in the sale, advertising, and offering for sale in commerce, of fur products; and lUlS sold, f((lvertised 476 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIO:" DECISIONS Complaint 64 F.

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 falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondent in that they were not invoiced as required by Sections 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. 4. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively 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 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 11;e1'e invoiced 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 designations. PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced with respect to the name of the country of odgin 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 sneh fur products as the United States when in truth and in fact the furs used in such fur products were imported.

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 promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) Informati0l1 tequired under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated JACK SO"IMERS 477 475 Complaint thereunder was set forth on invoices in abbreviated form, in viola. tion of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations. (b) The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth on invoices in t.he manner required by Jaw", in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) 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.

(d) Re uired item numbers were 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 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 a.dvertiser11ents but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondent which appeared in issues of the K ew York Times, a newspaper published in the city of New York, State of New York.

Among such fa.lse 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. 8. 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 a.nd Regulations promulgated thereunder inasmuch as 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. 9. 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 said advertisements through such statements as "JAY TI-IOR.PE MUST SELL OVER S500 000 WORTH OF TRADITIO JAY-THORPE QUALITY FURS" represented that the fur products listed were a part of the regular stock of furs owned by J ay- Thorpe and were being offered for sale as a part of the Jay-Thorpe collection when in truth and in fact a substantial number of the fur products thus listed, advertised and offered for sale were not part 478 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISION'S Decision 64 F.'I'.

of the regular stock of furs owned by J ay- Thorpe and were not part of the Jay-Thorpe Collection, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 10. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of sinlilar import and meaning' not specifically referred to herein spondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertisements . represented through such staten1ents as "JA Y- THORPE ML:ST SELL OVER $500 000 WORTH OF TRADI- TIONAL JAY-THORPE QUALITY FURS" that the aggreg' ate quantity of fur products in stock offered for sale would retail at $500 000 when in truth and in fact the fur products offered for sale would retail for substantially less than that amount, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 11. In advertising fur products for sale, as aforesaid, respondent made pricing claims and representations of the types cov ered 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.

I:J AR. 12. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and R.egulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of compe tition 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 w.ith 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 there after 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 rules; and JACK SOMMERS 479 47fi Order The Commission, having considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by saiel agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the follo\ving order:

1. Respondent Jack Sommers was president of J ay- Thorpe Inc. a dissolved corporation whose offce and principal place of business was located at 24 "IV est 57th Street, K ew York, X ew York. The address of respondent Jack Sommers was the same as that of said Jay-Thorpe Inc.

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

ORDER It is ordered That respondent Jack Sommers individually and as a former offcer of J ay- Thorpe Inc., a dissolved corporation and respondent' s representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the int.roduction, 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 sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation 01' 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': ille defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. 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 that3. producedM:isr(!presentingthe fur containedin any manner,in suchdirectlyfur product.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 Prodnets Labeling Act and the Rules . ilnd Regulations promulgated thereunder ill abbreviated form.

480 FEDERAL TRADE COl\IMISSIQN DECISIONS Order 64 F.

5. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb:' in the manner required where a, n election is made to use that term instead of the words "Dyed La.mb" 6. Failing to set forth the term ";\ at ural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on invoices 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.

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

E. 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 sa.le 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. 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 Reguhttions promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which a.re not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

3. lisrepresents in any manner that any fur prorluct is a part of the stock or collection of any person or firm. "1. )lisrepl'esents in any manner, the quantity of fur products or the reta,il price of any fur product or aggregate price of fur products offered for sale.

:rIaking claims and representations of the types covered c. by subsections (a), (b), (e) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act unless there is maintained by respondent full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based.

It is fU1'thel' ordered That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon him of this order, file with the ComJn-ission a report in writing setting forth in detail the, manner and form in which he has complied with this order. , ,:?, ALLIED STORES CORP. ET AL. 481 Complaint Ix THE MATTER OF ALLIED STORES CORPORATION ET AL.

CQXSEXT order, ETC. , IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDEIL-\L TRADE CO)DfISSIOX ACT Doc7 et ('-699, Complaint, Jan. 1964 Decision Jan. . 1964. Consent order requiring- three i\ ew York and two Tennessee concerns to cease representing falsely in newspaper Ilc1YertL"ement:s that certain shoes they sold were mnnnfactUl'ell for the United States Xavy and in accordance with Xavy specifications, \were inspected and al1J1ro\,etl uy Xavy inspectors and ""ere regulation Xa\ Y "offcers' shoes: and requiring the 1l1umfacturers of said 1"hoes to cease making the aforesahl misrepresentations by stamping on the shoes purported ?\ avy specification and inspection numbers, the name of tile pl1rpOltell X y inspector fllld such statements as " S. Xavy Last" and to cease making similar misrepresentations in advertising mats and jJroofs furnished to retailers.

rrLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federa.l Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Allied Stores Corporation, Allied Stores of New York, Inc. , Stern Brothers, Inc. Genesco, Inc., and ,Y. L. Douglas Shoe Company, corporations, hereinafter refe.rred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of sa,id --'-ct, and it appearing to the Commission that. a proceeding by it. in respect thereof ,vould be in the public interest, hereby issues Hs complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: -\RAGHAPH 1. I esponclent. Allied Stores Corporation is a Corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Inws of the State of Delaware with its principal offce and place of business located at 401 Fifth Avenue ew York, New York. Respondent Stern Brothers, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State 01 Xew York. It is a department store in the ..AJlied Stores Corporation chain and is 10caJed at 41 ,Vest 42nd St.reet e"\v York, New York, with branch stores in Paramus, Xew ,Jersey and Paterson New .Jersey. It does business under the name of Stern Brothers and Stern Prior to Jamlary 1, 1963, and during the period covered by the acts and practices hereinafter referred to, respondent Stern Brothers Inc., was ,,-holly owned and operated by respondent Allied Stores Corporation. Since January 1 1D63 respondent Ste.rn Brothers, Inc. has been o,vned and operated by Allie,d Stores of New York Inc. , a 482 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSro DECISIOXS Complaint 64 F. T.

New York corporation which is a wholly owned subsidiary of respondent Allied Stores Corporation, Rnd whose Rddress is 162-10 Jamaica Avenue, Jamaica, Long Island, New York.

Respondent Genesco, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under Rnd by virtue of the Jaws of the State of Tennessee, with its principal offce and place of business located at 111 Seventh Avenue, "1Torth ashville 3, Tennessee. Respondent 'V. L. Douglas Shoe Company is it corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the In ws of the State of )Iassachusetts. It is a ,yhoIJy owned subsidiary corporation of Genesco, Inc. , and an operating division thereof. Its principal offce and place of business is the same a,s that of Genesco Inc.

PAR. 2. Respondent Allied Stores Corporation, now through the operating corporatlon, Allied Stores of ew York, Inc., and formerly through Sterll Brothers, Inc., and its other ret- ail stores, is now, nnd for some time last past has been, enga,gec1 in the advertising, offering for sale, sale and distribution to the public of various articles of merchandise including men s shoes which closely resemble in appea.rance shoes issued to members of the United States :Kayy. PAR. 3. In the course and conduct or their business, respondents Alled Stores Corporation A1Jied Stores of 1\ ew York, Inc. , and Stern Brothers, Inc., now cause and for some time last past have caused said products, when sold, to be shipperl from the Stern Brothers, Inc. , store in the State of ew York to purchasers thereof located in nuious other States of t.he United States, and maintain and at an times mentioned herein have maintained a substantial course of trade in saiel products in commerce, as "commerce: is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act. Respondent A1Jied Stores Corporation and Allied Stores of 1\ew York, Inc., from their headquarters in K ew York, ship! nnd cause to be shipped, merchandise to stores locatell in States other than Xew York for sale to the purchasing public. They further engage. in commercial intercourse, in commerce, consisting of t.he transmission and receipt of letters, checks, reports, contracts and other documents of 11 commercial nature bet,yeen headquarters and stores in the various States.

-\R. 4. Hesponclent Genesco, Ine. , tl1foug11 its said subsicliary, ",V. L. Douglas Shoe Company! is now, and for some time last past has been, engaged in the manufacturing, advertising, offering for sale, sale and distribution of shoes, including shoes of the type desc.ribed in Pa.ragraph 2, to retailers for resale to the public. ALLIED STORES CORP. ET AL. 483 481 Complaint PAR 5. In the course and conduct of its business, respondent Genesco, Inc., through respondent W. L. Douglas Shoe Company, now causes and for some time last past has caused said shoes, when sold, to be shipped from its place of business in the State of Tennessee to purchasers thereof located in various other States of the 1Jnited States, and maintains and at an times mentioned herein has maintained a substantial course of trade in said products in commerce as "commerce" is def1necl in the Federal Trade Commission Act. PAR. 6. In the course and conduct of their business, and for the purpose of inducing the purchase of their shoes, respondents Allied Stores Corporation and Stern Brothers, Inc. , have made numerous statements in advertisements placed in newspapers in respect to the kind, type, manufacture, construction and quality of said shoes. Typical, but not all inclusive of such statements, are the following: (Ilustration of shoes By W. L. Douglas OFFICERS' SHOES BCILT ON AUTHENTIC S. NAVY LASTS S. KAVY INSPECTIO" AND SPECIFICATION Number STA:VIPED ON OUTS OLE Authentic BLACK LEATHER U.S. KAVY SHOE GOVERKNIEKT SPECIFICATION LASTS PAR. 7. By and through tbe use of said ilustration and the abovequoted statements said respondents Allied Stores Corporation and Stem Brothers, Inc. , represent, directly or indirectly: 1. That said shoes 'were manufactured for the United States N a.vy and in accordance with Navy specifications. 2. That said shoes were jnspected by United States Navy inspectors and approved as meeting United States X a.vy specifications. 3. That said shoes were offcial or regulation Lnited States avy offcers' shoes.

PAR. 8. In truth and in fact:

1. Said shoes were neither manufactured for the United States K avy nor ,were they made in accordance with :! avy specifications. 2. Sajd shoes were neither inspected by United States:\ avy inspectors nor approved as meeting enited States Navy specifications. 3. Said shoes were not offcial or regulation United States X avy offcers' shoes.

Therefore the statements and representations as set forth in Paragraphs 6 and 7 hereof were and are false, misleading and deceptive. .IR. 9. Through their cooperative advertising program respondents Genesco, Inc., and 'V. L. Douglas Shoe Company shared the 484 FEDERAL TRADE COM:\ISSION DECISIONS Complaint 64 F.

cost of publication of the advertiseme.nts referred to in Paragraph 6 hereof with respondents Allied Stores Corporation and Stern Brothers, Inc. liesponc1ents Genesco, Inc., and 1V. L. Douglas Shoe Company paid their share of the publication charge upon receipt from time to time of tear sheets of the advertisements as proof of their publication. Thus, respondents Genesco, Inc., and ,V. L. Douglas Shoe Company knew" that said false and deceptive state ments and representations were being made in said advertisements. By the eon tinned payment of their share of the cost of pnblieation respondents Genesco, Inc., and ,V. L. Douglas Shoe Company thereby approved and sponsored publication of said advertisements for the purpose of furthering the sale of their said shoes to the public, so as thereby to become equally responsible for such misleading advertisemenis along "ith respondents Allied Stores Corporation and Stern Brothers, Inc.

Furthermore, and in the manner hereinafter described, 1'C8pon. dents Genesco, Inc., and ,V. L. Douglas Shoe Company furnish the means and instrumm1tnJi.ties to Allied Stores Corporation and Stern Brothers, Inc. , which provide the basis for certain of the aforesaid false, mjsJeading statements and representations. \H. 10. In the course and conduct of their business as aforesaid respondents Genesco, Inc. , and V. L. Douglas Shoe Company imprint or stmnp on said shoes purported specification and inspection numbers of the united States Kavy, the name of the purported Navy inspector, and various other statements such as " S. Kavy Last", impJyjng that said shoes have been made for the Navy and in accordance with Navy specifications. In the advertising mats and proofs furnished to retailers these said respondents make numerous stat.ements and representations respecting the kind, type, 11lanufac ture, construction and quality of their said shoes. Typical, but not all inclusive of such statements, are t.he following: (Illustration of shoes NAVY SHOES built over e. S. avy lasts This authentic ?- avy Oxford * * * * * * Takes a good shine, gives extra comfort and support and wears well. You former ?\avy men remember hmr yom' shoes met those requirements. This shoe, buil on offcial Navy lasts, does the same. PAR. 11. Through the use of the aforesaid statements in advertising and the markings on said product respondents Genesco, Inc., and ,V. L. Douglas Shoe Company represent, directly or indirectly: 1. That said shoes are offcial United States Navy shoes and are manufactured in accordance with Navy specifications. ALLIED STORES CORP. ET AL. 485 481 Decision 2. That said shoes are inspected by United States Navy inspectors and approved as meeting united States Ka,vy specifications. P AH. 12. In truth and in fact:

1. Said shoes arb not offcial United States )Ja'7 shoes and are nol manufactured in accordance "\\ith Xavy specifications. 2. Said shoes are not inspected by l;nitecl States Xa.vy inspectors and are not approved as meeting United States Navy specifications. Therefore the statements and representations as set forth in Paragraphs 10 and 11 hereof were and are false, misleading and deceptive. PAR. 13. Respondents Genesco, Inc. , and 1Y. L. Doug-Jas Shoe Company, by furnishing dealers ,-dth shoes upon which are stamped purported United States X a vy specification and inspection numbers and various other legends implying that said shoes had been manufactured for the Kavy, and by supplying them with advertising mats and proofs containing the illustration and statements referred to in Paragraph 10 hereof, have placed in the hands of retailers the means and instrumentalities through and by which the purchasing public may be mislcd as to the kind, type, manufacture, quality and construction of said shoes in the respects set forth in Paragraphs and 12 hereof.

PAR. 14. In the the conduct of their business, at all times men tioned herein, respondents have been in substantial competition, in commerce, with corporations, firms and individuals in the sale of Inen s shoes of the same general kind and nature as t hos€', sold by respondents.

PAR. 15. The nse by respondents of the aforesaid fa.1se, misleading and deceptive statements, repl'esentations and practices has had, and now has, the capacity and tendency to mislead members of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said statements and representations were and are true and into the purchase of substantial quantities of respondents' product by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief.

PAR. 16. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, wel' and are aD to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents' competitors and constituted, and now constitute, unfair methods of competition in commerce Hnd unfair Hnd deceptive acts and practices in commerce" in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECTSIOX .-ND ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its eomplaint dlftrging the respondents named in t11C caption hereof with Decision 64 ,' violation of the Federal 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 order; and The respondents a,nd counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondents of aJl 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 complaint in the form contemplated by said agree ment, makes the following jurisdictional fillclings and enters t.he following order:

1. Respondent Allied Stores Corporation is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the St.ate of Delaware dth its offce and principal place of business located at 401 Fifth Avenne, in the city of Xew York, State of New York.

Respondent Alled Stores of N ew York, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Xew York. Its offce and place of business is located at 1(;2-10 .Jamaica Avenne, in the city of Jamaica, Long Island, State of New Y orlc Respondent Stcrn Brothers, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Xew York, with its offce and principal place of business lo( atecl at 41 1Vest 4Qnd Street, in the city of ew York, State of ew Yark. Respondent. Genesco, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the la1\s of the State of Ten. nesse, with its oilce and principal place of business located at 111 Seycnth .Avenue in the city of Nashville, State of Tennessee. Respondent \V. L. Douglas Shoe Company is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of :Massachusetts. Its offce ancl place of business is the same as that of Genesco, Inc.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the sllhjed matter of this proceed1in nnd. of the respondents. flnd the proceeding is in the public interest ALLIED STORES COHP. ET AL, 487 481 Order ORDER I tis o1'de1'ed That respondents Allied Stores Corporation, Allied Stores of :Yew York, Inc., Stern Brothers, Inc., Genesco, Inc., and 'V. L. Douglas Shoe Company, corporations, and their oiIcers representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the oflering for sale, sale or distribution of foobyear in commerce, as ""commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Representing, directly or indirectly, that said products are manufactured for the L;united States Kavy, or for any other branch of the Armed Forces of the United States, or in accordance with the specifications .of the said Navy or any other branch of the saiel armed forces unless saiel products have been manufactured for and in accordance with specifications of sllch branch of service. 2. Representing, directly or indirectly, that said products have been manufactured for or are in any other manner identified or connected with a designated organization or person which is not pri. marily engaged jn commercial merchandising unless such products have been so manufactured and are in fact connected with such organization or person in the. manner represented; or misrepresenting in any manner the specifications employed in the manufacture of such products so desjgnatecl.

3. Representing, directly or indirectly, that such products have been inspect.ed by United States X avy inspeetors or that. they have. been approved as meeting United States Navy specifications when said products ha.ve not been so inspected or approved, or misrepresenting, in llny manner, the kind or extent of the inspections or the approval accorded said products.

It is furthe1' ordered That respondents Genesco, Inc. , and V. L. Douglas Shoe Compa.ny, corporations, a.ncl their offcers, representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corpora.te or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale Or distribution of foohvear in commerce, a.s "commerce: is defined in the Ferleral Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from furnishing or otherwise placing in the hands of retailers of said products, or others, any means or instrumentalities by or through which they may mislead and deceive the public in the manner or as 10 the things hereinabove prohibited.

It /8 fU1'ther ordered. That respondents Alled Stores Corporation Allied Stores of Xew York, Inc., and Stern Brothers, Inc., corpora- , 488 FEDERAL TRADE COM:;ISSIO DECISIONS Complaint 64 F.

tions, and their offcers, representatives, agents and employees directly or through ally corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of footwear in commerce as "coml1erce is defined in the Feclcl'a1 Trade Commission Act, do fortlnvith cea:3C ancl desist from representing, directly or indirectly, regulation United States a yythat said products are offcial or offcers shoes when said pro(l11cts have not been manufaeturecl pursuant to and in accol'(lancc with terms of a contract with the rnited States Xavy; 01' misrepresenting, in any mnnncr the type, design or style of foot\year Iyhich resembles in appearance or is identified or describecl as foon'real' manufacture(l for the Armed Forces of th t:nitecl State,.

It -is .Tui'tltel' onlcl'ed, That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) clays after sCITice upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in \'Tiring setting forth in detail the Ilnnner and form in which they have complied with this order. Ix THE :3IATTER OF :3. KLEIX DEPARBIEXT STORES, IKC., ET AL. CONSENT OlmEH , ETC. , IX HEG,\HD TO THE ALLEGED VIOL-\TION OF THE FEDERAL TH.\.DE CO.:U:UISSIOX AND THE FUH PHODlTTS LABELING ACTS iJ. , 1964. Docl et C-700. Compl.aint, Jan. 1964.-Dcci8iun, Ja. C(Jl ent order requiring foul' associated retailers of fur products to cea:,e violating the Fur Pro(ll1ds Lilbeling" Act by failing in labeling nncl invoicing to sbo\\ the true name of animals producing certain furs, to disclose ",'hen furs ,ere dyed or bleached, to show the country of orig"in of imported fU1'3, anrl to use the term "Persian Lamb" as required; falsely labeling the country of origin of furs as the 'Cnited States and domestic furs as imported: substituting nonconforming labels for those originally attached to fur prorlucts; and failng in other respects to comply with requirements of the Act. COl\IPL,\IXT Pursuant to the. provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Produc.ts Labeling Act and by virtue of the authority ve.stecl in it by saiel Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having , a corpora-re.ason to believe that S. Klein Department Stores, Inc. tjon S. Klein on the Square, Inc., a corporation, S. IGein Fur Corpo- S. KLEIN DEPARTMEKT STORES, 1KO. , ET AL. 489 488 Complaint ration, a corporation, and Ja. R.robert Fur Corporation, a, corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules anel Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, and it appea.ring 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:

\.RAGnAPH 1. Hesponclents S. 10ein Department Stores, Inc., S. leill on the Square, Inc. , S. Klein Fur Corporation, and Jay- Robert Fur Corporation are corpon1tions organized, existing and doing business under and by Yll'tue of the la\ys of the State of ' York. Hesponc1ellts are engaged in purchasing, retailing and distributing fur products with their offce and principal place of business located at 14th Street and Enion Square e'" York Yark.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on Angnst 9 , 1052, respondents have been and are now engaged in the. introduction into COHlllerc.e, and in the sale, advertising, and otrering for sale in commerce, and in the nansportntion and distribution in commerce, of fur products; and hm' e sold, advertised offered for sale, transporteel and distributed :fur products "hieh have been made in \whole 01' in part of furs .which have been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms "COl1lnerce\ ;' fnr: and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively Jabeled 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 labe-le,d to show the country of origin of furs used in such fur products as the United States ",hen the country of origin of such furs was not the United Stat.es.

-\H. 4. Certain of said fur prodllc1s ,,,ere misbran(led in that the:v were not labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the ma.nner and form pre scribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products ,,,ith labels ,,,which faiJecl: 1. To shmv the true animal name of the fur llsed in the fur product.

OG9- 70-- - , ,,, 490 FEDERAL TRADE CONL\1:SSIOK DECISIONS Complaint 64 I' 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 the imported furs contained in the fur product.

\R. 5. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in a.accordance with the R.ules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

1. Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set fort.h on labels in abbreviated form, in violation of HuJe 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

2. The term Persian Lamb was not set forth 011 la.bels in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 8 of said Rules ancJ Regulations.

3. Labels contained representations that the furs incorporated in fur products were imported when, in fact, such furs were domestic in violation of Rule 18 of said Rules and Regulations. 4. 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 30 of said Rules and Regulations.

5. 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. PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondents in fact 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 sltch falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not 1limited thereto, were fur products covered by invoices which failed: 1, To show the true animal name of the fur used jn the fur product.

2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fnr product ,..fls bleached dyed\ or otherwise artificially colored hen such ,,' as the fact.

8. To shm.. the country of orjgin of imported furs used in fur products.

-\H. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and cleceptin'ly invoiced 'iyith respect to the name or designation of the animal or S. KLEIN DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., ET AL. 491 488 Complaint animals that produced the fur from which the said fur products had Furbeen manufactured in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Products Labeling Act.

Among such falsely ancl deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products which were invoice,d 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. 'R. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that said fur products were invoiced to show that the fur contained therein wa.s natural, when in fact such fur ,vas point.ed bleached, dyed, tip dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 9. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoieed 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 Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth on invoices in abbreviated form. in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

invoices in the 2. The term "Persian Lamb" was not set forth on manner required by law, in violation of Rule 8 of said Rules and Regulations.

g. 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 Regn1ations.

PAR. 10. Respondents in introducing, selling, advertising and offering for sale in commerce and in processing for commerce, fur products, and in selling, ac1yertising offering for sale and processing fur products "which have been shipped and received in commerce hate misbranded such fur products by substituting thereon, labels which did not c.onform to the requirements of Section 4 of the Fur Products Labeling Act. for the labels affxed to said fur products by the manufacturer or distrjbutol' pursuant to Section 4(2) of said Act iu violation of Section g (e) of said Act. P.;\R, 11. The aforesaid acts and practic.es of respondents, as herein alleged, are in yiolation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder, and constitute unfair ano deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Tl':1rle Commissioll ,-\('t.

492 FEDERAL TRADE COM:IISSIO)J DECISIONS Order 64 F. T.

DECISION AXD ORDER The Commission having heretofore detennined to issue its com plaint charging the resp01idenis named in the caption hereof ,,-ith .-iolatioJl 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 T118 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 seh element 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 complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondents S. Klein Department Stores, Inc., S. Klein on the Square, Inc., S. Klein Fur Corporation, and Jay-Robert Fur Corporation are corporations organized, existing and doing business unclt'l' and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with their ofiice and principal place of business located at 14th Street awl Union Square, in the city of X ew York, State of X ew Yark. 2. The Federal Tnlde Commission has jurisclicUon of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, und the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is Ol'del'ed That respondents S. Klein Department Stores, Inc. a c.orporation, find its offcers, S. l\:lein on the Square, Inc" a corporation, and its offcers, S. Klein Fur Corporation, a corporation, and its offcers, and tray-R.robert Fur Corporation, a corporation and its offcers, and respondents' representati\' , agents, and employees directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection "jth the introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising or oflering for sale in c.commerce, of any fur product or in connection 'with the sale, advertising, ofiering for sale, transportation or distribution, of any fur product which is made in w.hole or in part of fur "hi('h has , S. KLEIN DEPARTMENT STORES , INC., ET AL. 493 488 Order 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. l\fisbranditlg fur products by:

1. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying a.ny such fur product as to the country of origin of furs contained in sllch fur product.

2. Failing to affx labels to fur products showing in \\"orcls and in figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

3. Setting forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regu- Jations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form on labels affxed (0 fur products.

4. 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 \'lord "Lamb" 5. Failing to set forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated t.hereunde.r on labels in the sequence required by Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

6. Hepresenting, directly or by implication on labels that the furs contained in fur products are domestic when such furs are imported.

7. Failing to set forth separately on labels attached to fur products composed of h,o or more sections containing different animal furs the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and H.egulations promulgated thereunder with respect E. toFalselythe furor comprisingdeceptivelyeachinvoicingsect.ion.fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing in words and figures pla.inly 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. Setting forth on invoices pertaining to fur products any false or deceptive information with respect t.o the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in such fur product.

3. Hepresenting directly or by implication on invoices that the fur contained in fur products is natural when such Syllabus 64 F.

fur is pointed, bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially Section colored.4. Setting forth information required under 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 . here an election is made to use that term instead of the ,""ord "Lamb 6. 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 It i8 further o1'dered That respondents, S. Klein Department Stores, Inc., a corpora60n, and its offcers, S. Klein on the Sqnare Inc. , a corporation, and its ofiicers, S. Klein Fur Corporation, a corporation, and its offcers and Jay-Robert Fur Corporation, a corporation, and its offcers and respondents' representatives, agents and its employees, directly or through any corporate or other device connection with the introduction, sale, advertising, or offering for sale, in commerce, or the processing for commerce, of fur procluets; or in connection with the selling, advertising, oiIering for sale or processing of fur products which have been shipped and receiwd in commerce, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding fur products by sllbs6tuting for the 1labels affxed to such fur products P suant 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 respondents 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. Ix THE IA TTER OF YUDOFSKY Fl RRIEHS nc., ET AL.

CONSEKT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED 'VTOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE CO:::IJ\ISSIOX AND THE F'CR PIWDUCTS LABELING ACTS , 1964. Docket 0-702. Complaint, Jan. 1964-lJecis'ioll, Jan. Consent order requiring retail furriers in Louisvile, Ky., to ce8 se viola ting the COll Fur Pruducts Labeling Act by affxing labels to fur products which tained fictitious prices; by invoicing which failed to comply with reouire- , YUDOFSKY :FURRIERS INC. , ET AL. 495 4U4 Complaint ments; by advertising in circulars distributed to prospective customers which misrepresentecl prices of fur products as "Below Our Cost" ; and by failng to keep adequate records as a basis for pricing claims. 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 Y udofsky Furriers Inc. , a corporation, and lolTjs Yudofsky, .Joseph Yudofsky, Ruth Yudofsky and Dorothy Yudofsky, indivic1na1Jy and as officers of said 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 ,,' oulel be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: UIAGR.-\PII 1. Hesponelent Y udofsky Furriers Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the State of Kentucky with its offce and principal place of business located at 709 South Fourth Street, Louisville, Kentucky. Individual respondents )dorris Yudofsky, Joseph Yudofsky, Ruth Yndofsky and Dorothy Yudofsky are officers of the said corporation and control, direct and formulate the acts, practices anel policies of the said corporation. Their offce and principal place of business the same as that of the said corporfltlon. R.respondents retail fur products.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August \) 1\)52, 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 ha.ve sold, a,d-vertised 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 t.he terms "comme.rcc iur" and "fur product" fire defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAn. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely and deceptively identiJiec1 in that labels containing iictitious prices "were affxed to such fur products in vio1atioll of Section 4 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto were fur products with labels wl1ich cpntainec1 prices which were , , 496 FEDERAL TRADE COlYlISSIO DECISIONS Complaint 64 F. T.

excess of the prices at which the said fur products were actlluJly sold in the regular course of business.

E'R 4. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deeeptiyely invoiced hy the respondents in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Aet and the Rules and H.egulations promulgated under such Act. m. 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 ,,,ith the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder inasmuch as required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of R.ule 40 of said Hules and Regulations.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products "ere falsely and deceptively advertised in that said Inr products were not advertised as required under the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Said advertisements were. intended to aid promote and assist directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of said fur products.

Among and included in the advertisement.s as aforesaid. but not limited thereto ere advertising circulars of respondents ",-which \"81'8 distributed to prospective customers.

By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and l1warning not speciflcally referred to herein: responclents falsely a,nd deceptive-IT ndv8rtisecl fnr products in that said advertisements misrepresented prices as being "Below Our Cost" and therehy also misrepresented the savjngs available to pnrehascl's of said products, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fnr Products Labeling Act and Rule 44(e) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the aforesaid Act.

PAR. 7. Respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act by affxing labels to such fnr products which contained fictitious prices and misrepresented the regular retail selling prices of such fur products in that the prices represented on such labels as the regular prices of such fur products \"ere in excess of the retail prices at \"which respondents regularly and usn ally sold such fur products in the recent regular course of business.

PAR. 8. In advertising fur products for sale, as aforesaid, respondents made pricing claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) of Rule 44 of the Regulations YVDOFSKY FURRIERS, INC" ET AL. 497 49! Dedsion under the Fur Products Labeling Act. Respondents in making sllch claims and representations failed to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon \\which sllch pricing claims and representations were based, in violation of Rule 44(e) of the said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 9. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Re.gulatlons 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 ha\ing 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 ft, consent order: a,n 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 purpose,s 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 complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisclietional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Y llc10fsky Furriers Inc., is a corporaiion orga,nized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of I\:entucky, "\with its ofiice and principal place of business located at 709 South Fourth Street, Louisville, Kentucky. Respondents lorris Ylldofsky, Joseph Yllclofsky, Ruth Yudofsky and Dorothy Y uclofsky arc offcers of said corporation and their 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.

, ,, , . , 498 FEDERAL TRADE CO:\IMISSION DECISIONS Order 64 F.

ORDER 1 t is O1'dM' That respondents, Y udofsky Furriers lne' a corpomotion, and its offcers, and l\Iorris Yudofsky, Joseph Yudofsky, Huth Yudofsky and Dorothy Yudofsky, indivichmlly and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees directly or through ally corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the sale advertising or offering for sale in commerce or the transportation or distribution in com merce of any fur product, or in connection with the sale, ac1vertising offering for sale, transportation, or distribution of any ful' product "which is made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as "commerce fur, and " fur proclucf are do forthwith cease anddefined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, desist from:

label- A. !llisbranding fur products by falsely or deceptively ing or otherwise identifying such products by any representation that any price hen accompanied or unaccompanied by any descriptive language as the price at which the mercha.ndise so represented was usually a.nd cllstomarily sold at. retail by the responde.nts unless such mercha.ndise \Vas in fact usually and customarily sold at retail at such price in the recent past. B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible aJl the information required to be disclosed in each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

C. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assignedD. Falselyto furorproducts.deceptively advertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement, or notice \'Ihieh is intended to aid, promote or assist directly or indirectly, in the sa.le, or offering for sale, of fur products and which:

1. Falsely or deceptively represents directly or by implication that the prices of fur products are "Below Our Cost" 2. :Misrepresents in any manner the savings available to purchasers of respondents' fur products.

3. Represents, directly or by implication, that the 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 TIMELY CLOTHES, I:\C. , ET AL. 499 4U4 Complaint unless such advertjsed merchandise was in fact usually and customarily sold at retail at such price by respondents in the recent past.

E. 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 respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon 'iyhich such claims and representations are based.

I t is JUTther ol'del'd That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in 'iYl'iting setting forth in detail the manner and form in 'iyhich they have complied \with this order