Alfred Boge Furriers

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

In the MattTer or ALFRED BOGE FURRIERS ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-846. Complaint, Oct. 7, 1964—Decision, Oct. 7, 1964 Consent order requiring a Spokane, Wash., retail furrier to cease falsely invoicing and deceptively advertising its fur products and failing to keep required records. :

Complaint Purusant 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 Alfred Boge Furriers, a corporation, and Alfred Boge, individually and as an officer 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 be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: Paracrapy 1. Respondent Alfred Boge Furriers is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington. | Alfred Boge is president of said corporate respondent and formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies of said corporate respondént.

Respondents are retailers of fur products with their office and principal place of business located at. North 8 Post Street, in the city of Spokane, State of Washington.

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.

Par. 3. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondents in that they were not invoiced as required Complaint 66 E.T.C.

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 to show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product. 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) 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.

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 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 Spokane Spokesman-Review, a newspaper published in the city of Spokane, State of Washington.

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. 8. To show the country of origin of imported furs contained in fur products.

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 the Fur Products Labeling Act in that the said fur products were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that 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.

ALFRED BOGE FURRIERS ET AL. 959 957 Decision and Order Par. 7. In advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid respondents represented through such statements as “Save 20-80% on our entire collection” that prices of fur products were reduced in direct proportion to the percentages stated and that the amount of said reduction afforded savings to the purchasers of respondents’ products when in fact such prices were not reduced in direct proportion to the percentages stated and the represented savings were not thereby afforded to the said purchasers, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Par. 8. In advertising fur products for sale, as aforesaid, respondents made pricing claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Regulations 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.

DEciIsION AND ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondents named in the caption 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, would charge respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act; and — The respondents and counsel for the Coommission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid 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 law 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 have violated the said Acts, and ‘having determined that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, hereby issues its complaint, accepts said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings and enters the following order:

1. Respondent. Alfred Boge Furriers is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the Decision and Order 66 F.T.C.

State of Washington with its office and principal place of business located at North 8 Post Street, in the city of Spokane, State of Washington.

Respondent Alfred Boge is president. of said corporation and his address is the same as that of said corporation. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It ts ordered, That respondents Alfred Boge Furriers, a corporation, and its officers, and Alfred Boge, individually and as an officer 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 “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 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, 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. 3. 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.

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 products, and which:

WORLD WIDE TELEVISION CORP. ET AL, 961 957 Sylabus 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.

9. 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.

8. Misrepresents in any manner the savings available to purchasers of respondents’ fur products.

4. Falsely. or deceptively represents in any manner that prices of respondents’ fur products are reduced. 5. Represents directly or by implication through percentage savings claims that prices of fur products are reduced to afford purchasers of respondents’ fur products the percentage of savings stated when the prices of such fur products are not reduced to afford to purchasers the percentage of savings stated.

C. 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.