Timely Clothes Inc.

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

IN THE l\L"'TTER OF TIMELY CLOTHES, IXC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IX REGATID TO Tile ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE CO)IlfISSIO::"- AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 0-701. Cumplaint, Jan. 1964-Decision, Jan. , 1964. Consent order requiring Rochester, N.Y., manufacturers to cease violating the Wool Products Labeling Act and th Ferleral Trade Commission Act by falsely representing the fabric in men s suits as imported from England by such statements aD labels as "Imported Fabric Pound Sterling " together with a depiction of the symbol fur the British pound sterling; and by making similar representations in magazine and other advertising. CO)IPL.UXT Pursuant to the provisions of (he Federal Trade Commission Act and the 'V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to beUeve that Timely Clot.hes Inc., a corporation and John P. lCeane, individually and as an offcer of said corporation hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the 'Vool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent. Timely Clothes Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the 500 FEDERAL TRADE COM:'nSSION DECISIONS Complaint 64 F.

laws of the State of Xew York, with its principal offce and place of business located at 1415 North Clinton Avenue, in the city of Rochester, State of New York.

R.csponc1ent John P. ICeane is an inc1iyidual and an offcer of respondent corporation. He formulates, directs and controls the acts and pnlctices of the respondent corporation hereinafter set forth. IIis address is the same as that of the respondent corporation. PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the 1Vool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and more especially since 1961 , respondents have introduced into commerce, manufactured for introduction into commerce, sold, transport.eel, distributed, delivered for shipment shipped and oflerec1 for sale, in commerce, ,yool products, ns the terms "commerce" and "wool product" arc defined in said Act. PAH. 3. Certain of saiel \fool products were misbranded by the respondents w-within the intent and meaning of Section 4(a) (1) of the 'V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were tagged Or labeled with tags which representeel, directly or by implication, that the fabries were imported from Great Britain ,,'whereas in truth anll in fact said fabrics were not of British origin.

Among such misbranded ",mol products, but not limited thereto were men s suits with labels on which the words "Imported Fabric Pound Sterling ' appeared in conjunction with the name of the corporate respondent Timely Clothes together with the depiction of a symbol ( ) commonly recognized as the symbol of the British pound sterling.

PAR. 4. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth above were, anu are, in violation of the \Vool Products Labeling Act of 1 )3f) and t.he Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder: and constitllted and now constitute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce 'iyithin the intent nd meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. PAR. 5. Hesponclents are now, and for some time last past have been, engaged in the advertising, o:flering for sale, sale and distribution of men s suits to retailers who in turn sell to the general public. PAR. 6. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents now cause and for some time last past have caused their said products, when sold, to be shipped from their place of business in the State of New York to purchasers located in various other States of the United States, and ma,intain, and at all times mentioned herein have maintained a substantial course of trade in said products in commerCCj as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

TIMELY CLOTHES , IXC. , ET AL. 501 499 Complaint PAR. 7. In the course and conduct of their business respondents have engaged in disseminating and causing to be disseminated in magazines and newspapers of interstate circulation, advertising designed and intended to induce the sale of certain of their men suits.

PAR. 8. In the course and conduct of their business and for the purpose of inducing the sale of men s suits offered for sale and sold by them, respondents have made and are now making statenlents and representations directly or by implication with respect to the origin of the fabric in said men s suits. Said statements and representations have been made in magazine and newspaper advertisements or interstate circulation and other kinds of advertising promotional material distributed to customers. Among and typical of the statements and representations contained in the aforesaid newspaper and magazine aclycrtisements, but not all inclusive thereof, are the following:

* * .. "rear a Pound Sterling suit by Timely Clothes from an exclusi\' e grOLlp of \\'001 fabrics. .. * '"

Pound Sterling Timely Clothes the pure wool suit with permanently creased trousers.

* '" '" Timely Clothes ' Pound Sterling pure wuol suit that's blessed with The Permanent Trouser Urease. '" '" * ,VOOL ACHII VES NEW GREAT?\ESS I SUITS BY "TDIELY CLOTHES" 01" * "" * IMPORTED FABRICS'" * * Among the typical of the statements find repre,sentations made in the aforesaid adyertislng promotional material are t.he follo\ving: * * * Pound Sterling By TIMELY CLOTHES.

* * * And no fiber matcbes tlw comfort of today;y s new wool-light. superb in aosorl)ency, texture color * * * Cume In And See This Luxuriant Pounel Sterling * * '" \n. D. By and through the use of the aforementioned statements and represent.ations of respondents and by other ',"Tittell statements of similar import and meaning not specifically set. out herein, respondents represented directly or by implication, that the nforesaid snit were made of British woolen fabric, \yhereas in truth and in fact the fabric used in the aforesaid suits is not of British origin. Therefore, the statements ancl representations as set forth in Paragraph 8, were and are false, misleading and clecepti ve. \H. 10. In the course and conduct of their business respondents han' rlch' crtlsed woolen products, namely men s suits by lneans of Jahels 01' tag attached to the outer side of the sleeve of said suits. On said Jl1bels the won1s "Imported Fabric Pound Sterling appeared in conjunction with the name of the corporate respondent , \\ Decision 64 F.

Timely Qlothes together ,,'ith the depiction of a symbol commonly recognized as the symbol of the British pound sterling. PAR. 11. By and through the use of the aforementioned statements, representations and symbols on ihe aforesaid labels respondents have represented directly or by implicabon, that said suits ere made of British woolen fabric whereas in truth and in fact the iabric used in said suits is not of British origin Therefore, the representations and depictions on labels arc false misleading and deceptive.

PAR. 12. By and through the use of the aforesaid lllSrepresentations in advertising promotional materials and on 1abeJs respondents placed in the hands of others the means and instrumentalities by and through which they may mislead and deceive the public as to the origin of said fabrics.

PAR. 13. There is a preference by a substantial segment of the purchasing public for British ,yoolen fabrics over woolen fabrics imported from other foreign countries.

PAH. 14. The use by the respondents of the aforesaid false, misleading and deceptive statements, representations and practices hat' 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 representadons were and are true and into the purchase of substantial quantities of respondents' products by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief.

PAR. 15. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents as herein alleged, ,"ere and are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents' competitors and constituted, and now constitute unfair methods of competition in commerce, and unfair and deceptive acts and pra.ctices in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DF.CISIOX ..\KD ORDEl The Federal Trade Commission J1aving iniiiated an investjgation of certain acts and practices of the respondents named jn the capt ion hereof, and the respondents having been furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Textiles and Furs proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, wouhl charge respondents with vioJntion of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission havjng thereafter executed an agreeme,nt containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the afore- TIl\rely CLOTHES, I ) ET AL. 503 499 DreIer said draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondents that the la,,- has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission s rules; and The Commission, having reason to believe that the respondents hflve violated the Federal Trade Commission ..ct and the "\Vool Products Labeling Act of 1039, and having determined t.hat complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, hereby issues its complaint, accepts said agreement makes the following jurisdietional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent Timely Clothes, Inc. , is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of State of Xe,," York ,,,jth its offce and princ.ipal place of business Joc.ated at 1415 Xorth Clinton Ayenue, in the city or Hochester, State of Xew York.

Respondent John P. Keane is an offcer of said corporation, and his address is the same as that of saiel 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', jntercst.

ORDER It i.s ol'del'ed That respondents Timely Clothes, Inc. , a corporation, and its offcers, and .John P. Keane, individually and as an oficer of said corporation and respondents representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction or manufacture for introduction into commerce, sale) transportation, distribution, delivery for shipment, shipment. or offering for sale in commerce of wool products as the terms "C011merce ' and " wool product." are defined in the 1V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 do forthwith cease and desist from: Misbranding such ""001 products by:

A. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling or otherwise identifying any such woolen product by representing contrary to fact that such products or the fabrics contained thereinB. Hepresentingare of Britishonorigin.labels affxed to wool products through the use of the term "Pound Sterling or the symbol of the British Pound Sterling or any words, terms, depictions, or symbols of similar import that the fabric contained in such products are of British origin when such fabric was not woven and manufactured in Great Britain.

504 FEDERAL TRADE COl\MISSION DECISIONS Syllabus 64 F.

It is further' ordered That respondents Timely Clothes, Inc. , a corporation, and its offce, , and John P. ICeane, individually and as a.n offcer of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device in connection with the offering for sale, sale, or distribution of men suits or any other product, in commerce, as "commerce ' is defined in the Federal Tracie Commission Act do foHhwith cease and desist from:

A. R.representing cont.rary to fact that any of such products or the fabrics contained therein are of British origin. B. Represent.ing through the Use of the term "Pound Sterling" or the symbol of the British Pound Sterling or through the use of any words, terms, depictions or symbols of similar import that the fabrics contained in its men s suits or other products are of British origin when such fabrics were not woven and manufactured in Great Britain.

C. Furnishing means and instrumentalities to others by and through which they ma.y mislead the public in the manner or through the practices prohibited by this order. It ;8 fur/he)' ordered That the respondents herein shall, ",within sixty (60) clays after service upon them of this order, me ",ith the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in ",hieh they have complied with this order. Ix THE latter OF FEUER FUn COJIPAXY ET AL.

SENT onder, ETC. , IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TIL\DE CO)BIlSSIO XN-D THE PITR PRODl:C'rs LABELING ACTS Docket C-i03. Compl,aint, Feb. 4, 1964-lJecision, Feb, 4, 1964 Consent order requiring manufacturing and retailng furriers in Chicago to cease violating tbe Fur Products Labeling Act by falsely representing prices of fur products as reduced in labeling and ad.ertising; failng to give the true name of the animal producing certain furs and tbe country of origin of imported furs and to use the term " natural" for furs that were not artificially colored on invoices and in advertising; invoicing furs deceptively as to the name of tbe producing animal and invoicing imported furs as products of tbe United States; failng to maintain adequate records as a basis for pricing claims; and failng in other respects with requirements of the Act.

, FEUER Fer co. ET AL. 505 504 Complaint COl\rrLAIX1' 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 Feuer Fur Compa,ny, a corporation and Sue Feuer, I-Iarry Feuer and Igor Soble, individually and as offcers of the 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 would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

1: ARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Feuer Fur Company is a. corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Ilinois.

Respondents Sue Feuer, Harry Fcuer and Igor Soble are offcers of the corporate respondent and formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth.

Hespondents are manufacturers and retailers of fur products ,with their offce and principal place of business located at Seven Divest Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective elate of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondents ha.ve been n.nd are now engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in the manufacture fol' introduction into commerce, and in the sale, advertising, and oflering for sale in commerce and in the transportation and distribution in commerce, of fur products j and have manufactured for sale sold, advertised, offered for sale, transporteel and distributed illr products which have been made in whole or in part of furs \which have been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms "('ommeree fur, and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

P AH. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of Section 4 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they ere falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely and decepti,-e);v identified in that labels affixed to fur products, contained representations. either directly or by implication that the prices of such fur products ,were reduced from the prices at which respondents regularly and usually sold sneh fur products in the recent regular course 224-069--70-33 506 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIOK DECISIONS Complaint 64 F.

of business and the amount of such purported reduction constituted savings to purchasers of respolldents products 'When in fact such fur products "ere not reduced in price fronl the prices at which respondents regularly and usually sold such fur products and savings were not. afiordec1 purchase.rs of respondents products as represented. PAn 4. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondents in that they ere not invoiced as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules nnd Hr.glllations promulgated under such Act. \.among such f,t1sely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limit eel thereto, 'were fur products covered by invoices which failed: 1. To shmy the true animal name of the. fur used in the fur product. 2. To sho\" the country of origin of imported furs used in fur products.

\R. 5. 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 dec.eptively invoiced fur products, but not hmited thereto, were fur products which were invoiced as " Alink:: hcn in fact the fur contained in such products was "Japanese :Mink" Also 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. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that respondents 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 dec.eptively invoiced fur products but not limit eel thereto, were fur products invoiced as "rabbit chinchilla PAR. 7. Certain of said fur products were false.ly and deceptively invoiced ith 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 t110 limited thereto: \were fur products invoi( e.c to show the name of countrv of oricrin of furs contained in such products as the. Fnited t;states when the furs contained in such fur products \were importell. FEGER FUR CO. ET AL. 507 504 Complaint PAR. 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 inasmuch as 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 l ule 19 (g) of the said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 9. 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 respondents which appeared in issues of the Chicago Sun Times, 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.ilec1 to show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product.

PAR. 10. By means of the aforesaid adn rtisements and others of similar import and 111meaning 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 degignation of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, in ,-violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Lltbeling Act.

Among such falsely and deceptively advertised fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products advertised as "BroacltaiP' thereby implying that the furs contained therein were, entitled to the designation "Broadtail Lamb" when in truth aud in fact they ,were not entitled to such designation.

PAR. 11. 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 adve.rtisf',el ill a('col chulce \"1t11 the Rules and Hegulations pronmlgatec1 therel111(lel' inasmuch as the term " Natural" "as not used to describe fur products which \"ere not pointed, bleached dyed, tip-dyed or ot11e1'\;1s8 mtificia11y colored, in vloln.tion of Rule ID (g) of the Eaid Rules and R,egulations. Decision and Order 64 F.

PAR. 12. 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 "iolation of tiection 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that the said advertisements represented through statel1en such as " you ever wanted to give her :NIink save now-as ney€,,!: before" either directly or by implication, that the prices of such fur products were reduced from the prices at which the respondents regularly and usually sold such fur products in the recent regular course of busine and the amount of such purported reduction constituted savings to the purchasers of respondents' products, when in fact such fur products were not reduccd in price frolll the price at which the respondents regularly and usually sold such fur products and savings were not afforded purchasers of respondents' products as represented. PAR. 13. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fm Products Labeling Act in that labels affxed to fur products, contained representations, either directly or by implic.ation that the prices of such fur products were reduced from the prices at 'ihieh respondents regularly ancJ usually sold such fur products in the recent regula!' C.OTl-course of business and the amount of such purported reduction stituted savings to purchasers of respondents' products when In fact such fur products were not reduced in price from the prices at. ,d1ich respondents regularly and usually sold such fur products and savings were not afforded purchasers of respondents' products as l'eVl'esented. PAR. 14. In advertising fur products for sale, as aforesaid respondents made pricing claims and representations of the. types covered by subsections (a), (b), (e) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Regulations under the Fur Products Labeling Act. H,t'spondents ill making such claims anel representations failed to maint,lin full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon \\which such pricing claim3 and Te.presentations were based, in violation of Rnh 4..(e) of the said Hules and H.egulations.

, 8. PAR. 15. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents herein alleged, are in violation of the. Fur Products LalJe1ing Artand the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder ilil(l constitute unfair and deceptive a.cts and practices and l1nfu,ir methods oJ competition in commerce under the Federa.l Trade C )mr"i sion Act. DECISION AXD ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to 12sue its complaint charging the respondents named in the caption1l hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products , FEl, EH FUR CO. E'r AL. 509 504 Decision and Order Labeling Act, a,nd 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 responrle-nts and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed a.n a.gre.ement containing a consent order, an admission by respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to issue. herejn 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 hy 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 fol1moving jurisdictional.l findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Feuer Fur Company is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by "irtne of the Jaws of the ::tate of Illinois, wit.h its offce and principrd place of business located at even Vest :\IRdison Street, Chicago, Illinois. Rt\ pondent'3 Sue. Feuer, Harry Feuer and Igor Soble are officers 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 thif:. proceeding and of the respondents and the proc.eeding i in ihe pllblic illterpst.

ORDER it orde)'erl That respondents Fencl' Fur Company, a corporation and its offcers and Sue Feuer, l-Iarry Feuer and Igor Soble, individually and as officers of said corporation and respondents' representatives, Ggents and employees directly or through any corporate or other dr.dce, in connection with the int.production, or manufacture for introc1uchcn into commerce or the sale, acb"ertjsing or offering for sale in commerce: or the transportation and distribution in commerce of any fu!' product; or in connection ,with the manufacture for sale, sale, ach-ertising, 9uering for sa 1e, transport.ation or distribution of any fur product which is made ill ,,-hole or ill part of fur which has been shipped and received in COllmerce as thc terms commerce fur: and " fur proc1uct: are defined in the. Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith ce.ase and desist from: \. Misbranding fur products by 1. :Isrepresenting' in any manner on labels or other means of identification the savings available to purchasers of pondents products.

510 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIOXS Decision and Order 64 F. 2. Falsely or deceptively representing in any manner directly or by implication, on labels or other means of identification that prices of respondents' fur products are reduced.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed in each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

setting fort.h 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. Setting forth on the invoices pertaining to fur products t.he name or names of any animal.1 or animals other than the name of the animal producing the fur contained in the fur product as specified in the Fur Products Name Guide, and as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations. 4. Misrepresenting in any manner, directly or by implication, the country of origin of the fur contained in fur products.

5. Failing to set forth the term "N 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 were not point, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

U. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products t.through the use of any advertisement, repre.sentatio1l public announcement or notice "which is intended to aid, promote or assist directly or indired1y, 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. dise1oE=ccl by each of the subsections of Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labf.ling Act..

2. Falselv or deceptively identifies any such fur jJroduct as to the me or designa.tion of the animal or animal.ls tha.t produced the fur contained in t.he fur product. 3. Fails to set fort.h the term " Katural" as part of the informat.ion required to be disclosed in advertisements under WATCHBANDS , IXC. ) ET AL. 511 504 Complaint the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products ,,-hieh are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

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

5. Falsely or deceptively represents in any manner that prices of respondents' fur products are reduced. 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 respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based.

It is further ordered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order. THE 1fatter OF WATCHBANDS, IXC-, ET AL.

ORDER, ETC" I REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMJnsslO ACT Docket 8:;,9. COIHplai.nt, Sept. 20 , 1.96J-JJcci8i, , Feb. , 196' Order requiring Korth Attleboro, Mass., distributors of metal expansion watchbands to manufacturers Hnd distributors of wat( hes awl to retaill'rs for resale, to cease sellng watchbands manufactured in whole or in part in Hong Kong or ,Japan with no disclosure of their foreign origin or with such statements imprinted on the packages as "Made in USA" ; and to cease preticketing their watchbands with fictitious prices. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act Rnd by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that -Watchbands, Inc. a corporation, and Charles H. Dolansky and John 1. l\ushey, indivjdual1y and as oHicers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, ha.ve violated the provisions of said Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect .. Order of ray 21 , 19R4, (1ellied re;3pondent.s' motion to vacate default and reinstate case for trillion the merit WATCHBANDS , IXC. ) ET AL. 511 504 Complaint the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products ,,-hieh are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

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

5. Falsely or deceptively represents in any manner that prices of respondents' fur products are reduced. 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 respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based.

It is further ordered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order. THE 1fatter OF WATCHBANDS, IXC-, ET AL.

ORDER, ETC" I REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMJnsslO ACT Docket 8:;,9. COIHplai.nt, Sept. 20 , 1.96J-JJcci8i, , Feb. , 196' Order requiring Korth Attleboro, Mass., distributors of metal expansion watchbands to manufacturers Hnd distributors of wat( hes awl to retaill'rs for resale, to cease sellng watchbands manufactured in whole or in part in Hong Kong or ,Japan with no disclosure of their foreign origin or with such statements imprinted on the packages as "Made in USA" ; and to cease preticketing their watchbands with fictitious prices. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act Rnd by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that -Watchbands, Inc. a corporation, and Charles H. Dolansky and John 1. l\ushey, indivjdual1y and as oHicers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, ha.ve violated the provisions of said Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect .. Order of ray 21 , 19R4, (1ellied re;3pondent.s' motion to vacate default and reinstate case for trillion the merit 5J2 FEDERAL TRADE C01\lilllSSION DEcrsIO ComplaiIlt 64 F.

thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues it.s complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: . ARAGRAPH 1. Respondent \Vatchbands, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing fmd doing business under and by virtue of the tate of :\iassachusetts, with its offce and principal place of business located at 380 East 'Washington Street in the city of Xorth Attleboro tate of rassachusetts.

Hespondents Clllldes H. Dolansky and ,J ohn L M ushey are officers of the corporate respondent. They formulate, direct and control the acts and pract.ces of the corporate respondent., including the acts a.nd practices hereinaft.er set forth, Theil' address is the same as that of the corporate respondent.

PAR. 2, Respondents are now, a,ncl for some time last past ha \' been engaged in the advertising, offering for sale, sale and distribution of metal expansion watchbands to manufacturers and distributors of watches as well as to retailers for resale to the public. 1) AR, 3. In the course and conduct of their business: respondents now cause, and for some time last past have cilused, their said product, when sold, to be shipped from their place of business in the ::tate of l\1assachllsetts to purchasers thereof located in various other btates of the Unit,ed States and in the District of Col11mbia and maintain, and at all times herein mentioned have maintained, a. substantial course of trade in said product in C0l11nerce, as "commerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act. PAR, 4, Said watchbands consist in ,,1'1010 or in sllbstRntial part of components which were manufactured in, and imported from Hong Kong or ,Japan. 1Vhen offered for sale or sold by respondents said watchbands do not bear disclosure showing that they are substantially of foreign origin. In some insta.nces respondents also affrmatively represent, directly or by implication on the packages of said watchbands that said watchbands are made in the l:united ::states of America by imprinting t.hereon certain representations which the following is typical:

Made in USA.

::uch affrmative representations are false misleading and deceptive, as substantial portions of said products are manufactured in and imported from Hong Kong or Japan.

PAR. 5. In the absence of an adequate disclosure that a product including metal expansion watchbands, is of foreign origin, the public believes and understands that it is of domestic origin, a fact of which the Commission takes offcial notice. WATCHBAKDS , u., , ET AL, 513 511 Complaint As to the aforesaid articles of merchandise, a substantial portion of the purchasing public has a preference for said articles which are of domestic origin, of which fact the Commission also takes offcial notice. Respondents' failure to clearly and conspicuously disclose the country of origin of said articles of merchandise, or substantial components thereof, :is, therefore, to the prejudice of the pllrcha5ing public.

PAR. 6. Hespondents, for the purpose of inducing the purchase of their watchbands, have engaged in the practice of using fictitious prices by attaching or causing to be attached to their watchbands tickets or tags upon which certain amounts ate printed, thereby representing, directly or by implication, that said amounts are the usual and regular retail prices of said watchbands. In truth and in fact, said amounts are not the usual and regular retail prices of said watchbands, but are in excess of prices at which said watchbands generally sell at retail in some of the trade areas where the representations arc made.

PAR. 7. By the aforesaid practices, respondents place in the hands of watch manufacturers, distributors and retailers, means and instrumentalities by a,nd through which they may mislead the public as to the usual and regular price of said watchbands and the place of origin of said watchbands or the substantial components thereof, PAR, 8, In the conduct of their husines at all times mentioned herein, respondents have been in substantial competition in commerce with corporations, !-nns and individuals in the sale of metal expansion watchbands of the same general Idnd and nature as that sold by the respondents.

PAR. 9. The use by respondents of the false, misleading and dec.eptive representations and practices hereinabove set forth, and the failure to disclose the foreign origin of their watchbands or of substantial components of their watchbands, have had, and now have the capacity and tendency to mislead and deceive purchasers or members of the buying public in the manner aforesaid, and thereby to induce them to purchase respondents' watchbands. IJ AR. 10. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, were and are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents' competitors and constituted, and now constitute unfair methods of competition in commerce and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Mr. Herbert L. Blume supporting the complaint. No appearance filed for respondents.

514 FEDERAL TRADE CO:\IMISSION DECISIONS Df'('j,;ioll G4 F.

I:sITIAL DECISION BY TOSEPU \V. K.\.UF)L\.1\ , IIE.-\RI G EXAJ\rISEJ- NOVEMBER 26, 1963 The complaints herein, charging respondents .,ith violation of Dection 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act hv the making of false and misleading representations, and the faill1 e to disclose - the forejgn origin of their i\atchbands or of substantial components t.hereof, for the, purpose of inducing the. saJe of merchandise WflS issued September 20, 1963, and "as dlll . selTed upon respondents by registered mail on October 10, 1963. The respondents have not file,l their a.answers to this complaint ,within the time rcqnired and are now in default. Pursuant to the JJroyisions of Rnl" :). 5(c) of the Commission s Rules of Practice for Adjudirati'-e Proceedings, and on complaint conllserS motion, the hearing examiner hereby declares the respondents in default and now finds the facts to be as alleged in t.he complaint, and issues his initial decision containing such findings appropriate conclusions drawn therefrom and order to cease and riesist, as follows:

FJXDIXGS ov \CT 1. Respondent 'Vatchbancls, 111('.. is a corporfltion organized: existing and doing business under and b 7 virtue of the la"s of the SUtte of )fassachnsetts, with its offce and principal place of business located at :)80 East IYashini'ton Street in the city of North Atteboro tate of Massachusetts.

Respondents Charles 1-I. Dolansky and tJohn I. )Iushey are officer of the corporate respondent. They formnhte, direct and control the acts and practices of the corporate re ponc1ents, including the acts and practices hereinafter set forth. Their address is the same as that of the corporate respondent.

2. Respondents are nmy, and for some time last past have been engaged in the advertising, of Ie ring for sale, sale and distribut.ion of metal expansion watchbands to manufrlCtUl'eTS and distributor:: of watches as wen as to retailers for resale to the public. 3. In the course and conduct of their bnsinf'ss, respondents now cause, and for some time last past have caused, their said prodl.ct "hen sold, to be shipped from their place of business in the St.ate of Uassachllset.ts to purchasers thereof located in yarious ot.he-r States of the, United States and in the District of Columbia, and maintain and at all times herein mentioned ha,-e, maintained, a. subst.antial course of trade in said product in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

VlATCHBA 'ms, INC. , ET AL. 515 511 Findings 4, Said watchbands consist in \whole or in substantial part of components which we-rc manufactured in, and imported from IIong Kong or Japan. vV11en ofiered for sale or sold by respondents, said "atchbands do not bear disclosure showing tlmt they are substantially of foreign origin. In some instances respondents also affrmatively represent, directly or by implication on the pa,ckages of said watchbands that said wat.chbands are made in t.he rnitec1 States of America by imprintjng thereon certain representations: of ,,'which the following is typical:

?llflde in rsa.

uch aflirmative representations are false, misleading and c1deceptiye, as substantial portion of sitid products are m ullfactured in find imported from Hong Kong or .Tapan, 1. In the absence of an adequate disclosure that a product,. inc.luding metal expansion watchbands, is of foreign origin, the public believes and understands that it is of c1omest.jc origin, a fact of which the COlmnission takes official notice.

As to the aforesaid articles of merchandise, a substantial portion of the purchasing public has a preference for said articles which are of domestic crigin, of which fact the Commission also takes offcial notice. Hespondents ' failure to clearly and conspicllol1siy disclose the country of origin of said articles of merchandise, or substantial components thereof, is, therefore, to the prejudice of the pllrcha ing public.

D. R.esponc1ents, for the purpose of inducing the pnl'ChflSe of their watchbands, have engaged in the practice of using fictitions prices by attaching or causing to be athtched to their "\yatchbancls. tickets or tags upon ,,'which certa.in a.mounts are printed, thereby representing, directly or by implication, that said amounts arc the uSllaJ and regular retail prices of said watchbands. In truth and ill fact, said amounts are not the usual and regular retail prices of said wi1chbands, but are in excess of prices at which said "\Ytlchbancls generally sell at retail in some of the trade areas where the representations are made.

7. By the aforesaid practices: l'e,spondents piace in the hands of watch manufacturers, distributors and retai1cjs, means and instrumentalities by and through which they may mislead 1he public as to the usual and regular price of said "\nltc.hbands ancl the place of origin of said "\\"fltchhands or the substantial components thereof, 516 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIQXS Orner 6- F.

8, In the conduct of their business, at a.1J time.s mentioned herein respondents have been ill substantial cOlnpetition in commerce, \"ith corporations, firms and individuals in the sale, of metal expansion watchbands of the same general kind and nature as that sold by the respondents.

9. The use by respondents of the false, misleading and deceptive representations and practices hereinabove set fort.h and the failure to disclose the foreign origin of their watchbands or of substantial components of their "atchbands, have had, and now have, the capacity and tendency to mislead and deceive purchasers or members of the buying public in the manner aforesaid, and thereby to induce them to purcluu;e respondents' watchbands, CLUSIO)T The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged were and are al1 to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents' competitors and constituted, and now c.onstitute unfair methods of competition in commerce and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

ORDER 1 t is ordered That respondents ' Watchbands, Inc., " corporation and its offcers, and Charles 1-1. Dolansky and John I. Mushey, individually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives agents a,nd employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of watch.hbands or any other products, in commerce, as commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Offering for sale, selling or distributing any such products which tre substantially, or ,which conta.in a substantial part or parts, of foreign origin or fabrication without affrTIrltively disclosing the country or place of foreign origin or fabrication thereof on the products themselves, by marking or stamping on an exposed surface, or on a Jabel or tag affxed t.hereto, of such degree of permanency as to remain thereon until consummation of consumer sale of the products, and of such c.onspicnousness as t.o be Ekely observed and read by purchasers and prospective purchasers making casual inspection of the proclncts. 2, Ofiering for sale, sell-ing, or distributing !lny such product packaged, or mounted in a container, or on a display card, vdthout disclosing t.he count.ry or place of foreign origin of the prod- RETAILERS ),JARKETING GUILD , INC" ET AL, 517 511 Syllabus uct, or substantial part or parts thereof, on the front or face of such packaging, container, or display card, so positioned as to clear,rly have application to the product so pad::aged or mounted and of such degree of permaneney as to remain thereon until consummation of consumer sale of the product, a.nd of such conspicuousness as to be likely observed and reac! by purchasers and prospective purchasers making casual inspection of the product as so packaged or mounted.

3, Representing, directly or indirectly: in any manner or by any means, t.hat their products are of domestic origin when said products Or substantia! portions thereof are of foreign origin. 4. The act or practice of preticketing merchandise at an indicated retail price when the indicated retail price is in excess of the generally prevailing retail price for such merchandise in the trade or when there is no generally prevailing retail price for such merchandise in the trade area.

5. Placing in the hands of jobbers, retailers, dealers, and others, means and instrumentalities by anc! through which they may deceive and mislead the purchasing public concerning any merchandise in the respects set out above. DECISION OF THE CO:lBIISSION AND ORDER TO FILE HEPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice efteetive August 1, 1963, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shan on the 5th day of February, 19M become the decision of the Commjssion; and accordingly:

It is ordered That respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon thmTI of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist.