Jacqueline'S, Inc.

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

In tee Matrer or JACQUELINE’S, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-799. Complaint, July 31, 1964—Decision, July 31, 1964 ‘Consent order requiring retail furriers in Portland, Ore., to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing, on invoices of fur products, to show the true animal name of fur used; failing to disclose in invoicing and in newspaper advertising when fur was artificially colored and to use the term “natural” to describe furs which were not bleached or dyed; advertising “Y Price and Less—fur stoles, Mink, Fox, Squirrel, $98 up” when such offer was not bona fide and there were no products in respondents’ establishment for sale at $98, and representing falsely through such statements as ‘‘Consolidation Sale,” that they consolidated the advertised fur products with products from other sources; failing to maintain adequate records as a basis for pricing claims; and failing in other respects to comply with requirements of the Act. .

Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act cand 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 Jacqueline’s, Inc., a corporation, and Harry X. Bergman, Eva Bergman and Shirley H. Engleman, individually 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 would Complaint 66 F.T.C.

be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

Paracrapy 1. Respondent Jacqueline’s Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Oregon.

Respondent Harry X. Bergman, Eva Bergman and Shirley H. Engleman are officers of the corporate respondent and formulate, direct and contro] the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent. , Respondents are retailers of fur products with their office and principal place of business located at 900 S.W. Morrison, Portland, Oregon. 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 have been made in whole or in part of fur 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. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondents in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under such Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products covered by invoices which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product. 2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur product was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact. Par. 4. 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) 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.

(b) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 5. 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 in- JACQUELINE’S, INC., ET AL. 405 403 Complaint directly, 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 Sunday Oregonean, a newspaper published in the city of Portland, State of Oregon.

Among such false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements which failed to show that the fur contained in the fur product was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

Par. 6. 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 Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that said advertisements represented through such statements as “14 price and Less— fur stoles, Mink, Fox, Squirrel, $98 up,” either directly or by implication, that respondents were making a genuine, bona fide offer to sell such Mink, Fox and Squirrel fur products for $98 and up. In truth and in fact the offer to sell fur products for $98 and up was not a genuine, bona fide offer to sell such described fur products but an effort to induce prospective customers into the establishment for the purpose of selling higher priced garments. There were no products thus advertised for sale at $98 in the respondents’ establishment. Par. 7. 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 Section 5(a)(5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that said advertisements represented through such statements as “Consolidation Sale” either directly or by implication, that respondents consolidated the advertised fur products with fur products from other sources when in truth and in fact the proposed respondents had not consolidated the advertised fur products with fur products from other sources.

Par. 8. 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 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.

Decision and Order 66 FT.C.

Par. 9. 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 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. 10. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. Decision and ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the 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 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 said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Jacqueline’s, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Oregon, with its office and principal place of business located at 900 S.W. Morrison, Portland, Oregon.

Respondents Harry X. Bergman, Eva Bergman and Shirley H. Engleman 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 JACQUELINE’S, INC., ET AL. 407 403 Decision and Order matter of this proceeding and of. the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered, 'That respondents Jacqueline’s, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Harry X. Bergman, Eva Bergman and Shirley H. Engleman, individually and as officers 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, 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. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by : 1. Failing to furnish invoices as the term “invoice” is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act 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. Failing to set forth the term “Natural” as part of the information required to be disclosed on invoices under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

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

B. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement or notice, which is intended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale, or offering for sale of any fur product and which:

1. Fails to set forth in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Represents that said fur products are offered for sale when such offer is not a bona fide offer to sell the merchandise, so and as, offered.

Complaint 66 F.T.C.

8. Represents directly or by implication that fur products offered for sale are consolid ated with fur products from other sources when such fur products are not consolidated with fur products from other sources.

4, Fails to set forth the term “Natural” as part of the information required to be disclosed in advertisements under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

C. Making claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d ulations promulgated under the ) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Reg- 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 sixty (60) days after service upon respondents herein shall, within 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 w ith this order.