Sara G. Picow

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

In tur Matrrer or SARA G. PICOW ET AL. TRADING AS ALLAN’S CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-813. Complaint, Aug. 17, 1964—Decision, Aug. 17, 1964 Consent order requiring a Columbia, 8.C., retail furrier to cease misbranding and deceptively invoicing its fur products. 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 Sara G. Picow and Edward I. Picow, individually and as copartners trading as Allan’s, hereinafter referred to as respondents have violated the provisions of said Acts and 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:

Paracrapy 1. Respondents Sara G. Picow and Edward I. Picow are individuals and copartners trading as Allan’s. Respondents are retailers of fur products with their office and principal place of business located at 1619-21 Main Street, Columbia, South Carolina.

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 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. ALLAN'S 539 538 Complaint Par. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely and deceptively identified in that labels affixed to fur products represented, either directly or by implication, through statements thereon such as “sale price,” that the prices of such fur products were reduced from the former, bona fide price at which respondents offered their fur products to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time and the amount of such reduction constituted savings to purchasers of respondents fur products. In truth and in fact the prices of such fur products were not reduced as represented and savings were not afforded to purchasers of respondents’ fur products as represented. Par. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely and deceptively identified with respect to the name of the country of origin of furs contained in such fur products, in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products labeled to show that the furs used in such fur products were domestic when the furs used in such fur products were, in fact, imported.

Par. 5. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely and deceptively identified with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products which were labeled as “Sable” when the fur contained in such products was, in fact, “American Sable.” Par. 6. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were not labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were 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 registered by the Commission of one or more of the persons who manufactured such fur product for introduction into commerce, introduced it in commerce, sold it in commerce, advertised or offered it for sale, in commerce, or transported or distributed it in commerce. Complaint . 66 F.T.C.

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

Par. 7. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

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

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

(c) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in handwriting on labels, in violation of Rule 19(b) of said Rules and Regulations.

(d) 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.

(e) Required item numbers were not. set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Par. & 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 thé 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. 9. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced with respect to the name of the country of origin of imported furs used in such fur products, in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products invoiced to show that the furs used ALLAN'S 541 5388 Complaint in such products were domestic when the furs you used in such fur products were, in fact, imported.

Par. 10. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth on invoices in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The term “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.

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

(d) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Par, 11. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that certain advertisements intended to aid, promote or 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 Columbia Record, a newspaper published in the city of Columbia, State of South Carolina, 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 products was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact. Par. 12. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, 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 in the following respects: Decision and Order 66 F.T.C.

(a) 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.. (b) 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. 18. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that labels affixed to fur products represented, either directly or by implication, through statements thereon such as “sales price,” that the prices of such fur products were reduced from the former, bona fide prices at which respondents offered the fur product to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time and the amount of such reduction constituted savings to purchasers of respondents’ fur products. In truth and in fact the prices of such fur products were not reduced as represented and savings were not afforded to purchasers of respondents’ fur products as represented. Par. 14. 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. DecrisIoN AND Orper 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 agree- ALLAN’S 543 53S Decision and Order ment, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondents Sara G. Picow and Edward I. Picow are individuals and copartners trading as Allan’s with their office and principal place of business located at 1619-21 Main Street, in the city of Columbia, State of South Carolina.

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.

ORDER It is ordered, That Sara G. Picow and Edward I. Picow, individually and as copartners trading as Allan’s or under any other name 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 products, 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. Misrepresenting, directly or by implication, on labels that any price when accompanied or not by descriptive terminology, is reduced from the actual, bona fide price at which respondents offered the fur products to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business.

2, Representing in any manner, either directly or by implication, on labels that any price is a sales price when such price is not reduced from the actual, bona fide price at which respondents offered the fur products to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business.

3. Misrepresenting in any manner on labels or other means of identification the savings available to purchasers of respondents’ fur products.

4. Falsely and deceptively representing in any manner directly or by implication, on labels or other means of identification that prices of respondents’ fur products are reduced. 5. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying Decision and Order 66 F.T.C.

any such fur product as to the country of origin of furs contained in such fur product.

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

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

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

9, 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 pro- ' mulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

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

11. Failing to set forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder on labels in the sequence required by Rule 80 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

12. Failing to set forth on labels the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed in each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Misrepresenting in any manner, directly or by implication, the country of origin of the fur contained in fur products.

8. 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. qt ALLAN’S 545 Decision and Order 4, 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.

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

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

C. 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 products, 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. Misrepresents directly or by implication that any price, when accompanied or not by descriptive terminology is reduced from the actual, bona fide price at which respondents offered the fur products to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business.

3. Represents in any manner, either directly or by implication, that any price is a sales price when such price is not reduced from the actual, bona fide price at which respondents offered the fur products to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business.

4, Misrepresents in. any manner, the savings available to purchasers of respondents’ fur products. 5. Falsely and deceptively represents in any manner that prices of respondents’ fur products are reduced. 6. 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.

’ Complaint 66 E.T.C.

7. 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.

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.