Huneck' S, Inc.

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

IN TH Matrer OF HUNECK' S, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER , ETO., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDER.4.L TRDE commissio AND THE FUR PRODL:CTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-763. Complaint, June 1964-Decision, June 17, 1964 Consent order requiring retail furriers in San Diego, Calif. , to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by labeling fur products with fictitious prices; failng in advertising, invoicing and labeling, to show the true animal name of fur, and when fur was "natural" ; failng to disclose in advertising and labeling when fur was artificially colored, and to show the country of origin of imported furs in advertising; invoicing mink as "Ermine; failng to keep proper records as a basis for pricing claims; substituting non-conforming labels for those originally affxed to fur products; :-nd failng in other respects to comply with requirements of the Act. COMPLAIKT 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 Commssion having reason to beEeve that Huneck: , Inc., a corporation, and Frank A. I-Iuneck, individually and as an offcer or said corporation, hereinarter 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 rollows: PARGRAPH 1. Respondent I-Iuneck' , Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue or the laws or tho State of California.

Respondent Frank A. Huneck is an offcer of the corporate responde11t and formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies of t.he said corporate respondent including those hereina,after set forrh.

Respondents are retailers of fur products with their offce and principal place of business located at 8th A venue and C Street, city of San Diego, State of California.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9 1952, respondents have been and arc now engaged in t.he introduction into commerce, and in the sale, advertising, and offering for sale in commerce, and in the transportation and distribu- 1056 FEDERAL IJ' TRADE COM::fISSION DECISIOl' Complaint 65 F.

tion in commerce, of fur products; and hl1ve sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been ml1de in whole or in pl1rt of furs which hl1ve been shipped Ilnd received in commerce, as the terms "commerce, "fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Ll1beling Act.

PAR. 3. Respondents have removed and hl1ve cl1used Ilnd pl1rticipated in the removal of, prior to the time fur products subject to the provisions of the Fur Products Ll1beling Act were sold Ilnd delivered to the ultiml1te consuer, labels required by the Fur Products Labeling Act to be I1ffxed to such products, in violation of Section 3 ( d) of said Act.

PAR. 4. Certl1in of said fur products were misbranded in violation of Section 4 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were falsely Ilnd deceptively labeled or otherwise fl1Jsely and deceptively identified in that Il1bels affxed to fur products, contained representl1tions, either directly or by implication that the prices of such fur products were reduced from respondents' former prices and the amount of such purported reduction constituted S!vings to purchl1sers of respondents' fur products. In truth and in fact, the I1l1egcd former priecs were fictitious in that they were not actual, bona fide prices at which respondents offered the products to ,the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business Ilnd the said fur products were not reduced in price as represented and savings were not afforded purchasers of respondents' said fur products, as represented.

PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were not Jabeled as required under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Among such misbranding of 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 disclose that the fur contained in the fur product was bleached dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was ,the bct. PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Ll1beling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

(11) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth on 1l1bels in abbrevil1ted form, in violl1tion of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

HUNECK' , INC. , ET AL. 1057 1055 Complaint (b) The term "natural" was not used on labels to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(9) of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Rcgulations promulgated thereunder was not set out on one side of labels, in violation of RuJ e 29 (a) of said Rules -and Regulations.

PAR. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondents in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under such Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoic.ed Iur products, but not limited thereto: were fur products coveted by invoices which failed to 8hO\v tho true anirna.l name of the fur used in the fur product. PAR. 8. Certain of said fur products ,were falsely and deceptively invoiced with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that p1'oduccd the fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

/Unong such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were rur products which were invoiced as "Ermine when in fact, the fur contained in such proc1uc.s 'Iv-as " mink" 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 invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) Inform. tion required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated therelmder was set forth on invoices in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth on invoices in the manner required by h, , in viola.tion of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) The term "natunll" was not. used on invoices to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in vio1otion of rule ID(g) of said Rules and Regulations.

'R. 10. Certain of said fur products were falsely a"cl deceptively advertised in violation or the Fur Products Labeling Act in t.hat certain advertis2ment.s intended to aid, promote and assist, directly or in. directly in the sale and offering for sale of such fur products were not in accordance \',-ith the provisions of Section 5(a.) of the said Act. 1058 FEDERAL TRADE COJYfMISSION DECISIONS Complaint 65 F.

Among and included in the aforesaid advertisements but not limited thereto, were advertisenleJlts of respondents which appeared in issues of the San Diego Union, a newspaper published in the city of San Diego, State of California.

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

1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product. 2. To show that the fur contained in the fur product was bleached dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact. 3. To show the country of origin of imported furs contained fur proeJucts.

PAR. 11. By means of the afores8Jid 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 anim;als that pro duced 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 advertised fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products advertised as Broadtail LaTIlb, when the fur contained in such fur products was entitled to the designation Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" but not the designation "Broadtail Lamb"

PAR. 12. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and lne,aning not specifically referred to here, , respondents falsely and d""eptively 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 Regula60ns promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lmnb" was not set forth in the mamler required, in violation of Rule 10 of the said Rules and Reguations.

(b) The term "natural" was not used to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(9) of the said Rules and Regulations. (0) All parts of the information required under Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder were not set forth in type of equal size and conspicuousness and in close proximity with each other, in violation of Rule 38 (a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. PAR. 13. Respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products by affxing labels thereto which represented either directly or by HUNECK' , INC.) ET AL. 1059 1055 Decisioll and Order implication that prices of such fur products were reduced from respondents former prices and the amount of such purported reduction constituted savings to purchasers of respondents fur products. In truth and in fact, the alleged former prices were fictitious in that they were not the adual, bona fide prices at which respondents offered the fur products to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably subsantial period of time in the recent reguar course of business and the said fur products were not reduced in price as represented and the represented savings were not thereby afforded to purchasers, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44(a) of the Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 14. In advertising fur products for sale, as aforesaid, respondents made pricing claims and reprcscntations of the types covered by subsections (a), (h), (c) and (d) of Rule.14 of the Regulations under the Fur Products Labeling A.ct.. R.respondents in making such cla,ims and representations fa.Deci to 11'aint,ain fun and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such pricing claims and represent.ations were based, in violation of Rule 44 (e) of the said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 15. Respondents, in introducing, selling, advertising, and offering for sale., in COll11nerce, and in processing for commerce, fur products; -and in selling, advertising, offering for sale and processing fur products which had 11een 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 aftLwel to said fur products by the manufacturer or distributor and to Section 4 of said Act in violation of Section 3 of said Act.

PAR. 10. The. a.foresaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein a.alleged, are in violation of t.he Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute lUlfair and decepti\ acts flnd practices rmd unfair methods of compe.t'ition in commerce.e uncle.r the Feeleral Trade COlnmission Act. DECISION AXD ORDER The Commission l1aving hBl'etofore deterlnined to issue its cOluplajnt charging the respondents named in the caption hereof with violation of the Feeleral Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondents having been serveel with notice of saiel 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 11 consent order, an admission by , 1060 'FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Dpci icm find Orc1or G5 F, respondents of all the jurisdictional fact.s set forth in the complaint to issue herein, a statement that signing of said agreement is for settle ment purposes only rmc1 does not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as set forth in such complaint, and wa.ivers and provisions as required by the Comn1issioll S rules; and The Commission, having considered the agreement: hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Runeck' , Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under-r and by virtue of the la,ws of the State of California with its oiRce and principal place of business located at 8th Avenue and C Street, city of San Diego, State of California. Respondent Frank A. Hunock is an offcer of the corporate respondent and his address is the same as that of the corporate reeponc1ent. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jmisc1iction of the subject matter of t.his proceeding and or the respondents, and the 1)roceeding is in the public interest.

OlUJER It is ordered That. respondent. I-Iu:icck' , Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and respondent Frank A. Huneck, individually and as a.n offcer of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, age,nts 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 comme,rce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce, of any fur product; or in connection with the sale advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution, of any fur product which is made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms "commerce fur" and fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. Misbranding fur products by:

1. Failng to affx labels to fur products showing in words 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.

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

3. Failing to set forth the ,term "Natural" as part of tbe :information required to be disclosed on labels under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations pro- HUKECK' e,w. ET AL. 1061 1055 Decision ;and Order mulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artifically colored.

4. Failing to completely set out information required u:der Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgruted thereunder on one side of the label affxed to fur products.

5. Representing, directly or by implication on labels, that any price, when accompanied or not by descri,ptive terminology is the respondents former price of fur products when such amount is in excess of the actual, bona fide price at which respondents offered the fllr products to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business.

6. Iisrepresenting in any manner on labels or other means of identification the savings available to purchasers of respondents' products.

7. 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 reducec1. 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 al1 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 to the name or designation of the animal or animals that pI'oduced the fur contained in such fur product.

3. Setting forth information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form. 4. 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" 5. Failing to set forth the term "Natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on invoices under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artifically co1orcd.

C. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur procluets through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement or 1062 FEDERAL TRADE CO:\IMISSIO:\ DECISIONS Decision and Order 6:3 F. 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 plainy legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (a) of the Fur 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 the fur contained in the fur product. 3. Fails to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail-procesd Lamb" III the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words "Dyed Lamb" 4. Fails to set forth the term "Natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed in adverlisements under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointcd, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

5. Fails to set forth all parts of the information required under Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in type of equal size and conspicuousness and in close proximity with each other.

6. Represents directly or by implication, that any price when accompanied or not by descriptive terminology is the respondents former price of fur products when such amolmt is in excess of the actual, bona fide price at which respondents offered the fur products to the public or a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business.

7. Misrepre.sents in any manne,I' the savings available to purchasers of respondents' fur products.

8. 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 reeords disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representatiolls are based.

It -is .further ordered That respondent I-Iuneck' , Inc., a corporation and its offcers and respondent Frank A. Huneck, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, and respondents: representatives, agents MOORE BUSINESS FORMS , INC. 1063 log:; Complaint and employees, directly or through lWY corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist frolll removing or causing or participating in the removal of, prior to the time any fur product subject to the prm-isions of the Fur Products Labeling Act is sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer, any label required by the said Act to be affxed to such rur product.

It is further ordered That respondent I-Iuneck' , Inc., a corporation and its offcers and respondent Frank A. Huneck, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, saJe, ftdvertising or oUering for saJe in commerce, or the processing for con1111erce, of fur products; or in conne,ction with the selling, advertising, offering for sale, or processing of fur products .which have been shipped and received in commerce do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding fur products by substituting for the labels affxed to such fur products pursuant to Section 4 of the Fur Products Labeling Act hlbels 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