City of Paris

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

In rae Matrer or CITY OF PARIS ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS _ Docket C-886. Complaint, Mar. 4, 1965—Decision, Mar. 4, 1965 Consent order requiring a department store in San Francisco, Calif., to cease misbranding and falsely advertising its fur and textile fiber products, and deceptively invoicing its fur products.

Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that City of Paris, a corporation, and George De Bonis, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and Suzanne De Tesson, individually and as chairman of the Board 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 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: Paracrapu 1. Respondent City of Paris is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, with its office and principal place of business located at 199 Geary Street, San Francisco, California. Individual respondents George De Bonis and Suzanne De Tesson are respectively president and chairman of the board of the corporate respondent, and formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of the corporate respondent, including the acts and practices complained of herein. Their business addresses are the same as said corporate respondent. Respondents are engaged in the operation of a retail department store.

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, Complaint 67 F.T.C.

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. 8. 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 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 misbranded in that labels attached thereto, set forth 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 4(3) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Par. 5. 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 Roeulations 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 “Broadtail Lamb” was not set forth on labels in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 8 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) 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.

(ad) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was mingled with non-required information, in violation of Rule 29(a) of said Rules and Regulations.

(e) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder CITY OF PARIS ET AL. 269 267 Complaint was set forth in handwriting on labels, in violation of Rule 29(b) of said Rules and Regulations.

(f) 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.

Par. 6, 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.

3. To show the country of origin of imported furs used in fur products. .

Par. 7. 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 “Broadtail Lamb” was not set forth on invoices in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 8 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) 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.

(d) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 8. 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.

Complaint 67 F.T.C.

-among and included in the aforesaid advertisements but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the San Francisco Chronicle, a newspaper published in the city of San Francisco, 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 product was composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies or waste fur, when such was the fact.

Par. 9. 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: 1. 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. 2. The disclosure that fur products were composed in whole or in part of paws, tails, bellies, sides, flanks, gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap pieces or waste fur was not made, where required, in violation of Rule 20 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. Par. 11. Subsequent to the effective date of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act on March 8, 1960, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction, sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce and in the importation into the United States, of textile fiber products; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, textile fiber products, which have been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, after shipment in commerce, textile fiber products, either in their original state or contained in other textile fiber products; as the terms “commerce” and “textile fiber product” are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

CITY OF PARIS ET AL. 271 267 Complaint Par. 12. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4(a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, invoiced, advertised, or otherwise identified as to the name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were textile fiber products which were falsely and deceptively advertised in the San Francisco Chronicle, a newspaper published in San Francisco, California and having interstate circulation, in that certain of said advertisements contained terms which represented, either directly or by implication, that certain textile fiber products, containing pile fabrics, were composed of only one fiber, when such was not the case.

Par. 18. Certain of said textile fiber products were further misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified as required under the provisions of Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were custom made drapes, slip coverings and furniture coverings which were not labeled to show any of the information required to be disclosed under Section 4(b) of such Act and were not covered by invoices correctly disclosing the aforesaid information under Rule 21(b) of the Rules and Regulations under such Act. Par. 14. Certain of said textile fiber products were falsely and deceptively advertised in that respondents in making disclosures or implications as to the fiber content of such textile fiber products in written advertisements used to aid, promote, and assist directly or indirectly in the sale or offering for sale of said products, failed to set forth the required information as to fiber content as specified by Section 4(c) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

Among such textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were articles of wearing apparel which were falsely and deceptively advertised in the San Francisco Chronicle, a newspaper of interstate circulation, in that such terms as “Arnel jersey” were used without the true generic names of the fibers in such articles being set forth. Decision and Order 67 F.T.C.

Par. 15. Certain of said textile fiber products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act in that they were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Among such textile fiber products but not limited thereto, were textile fiber products which were falsely and deceptively advertised in the San Francisco Chronicle, a newspaper published in San Francisco, California, and having interstate circulation, in the following respects:

A. A fiber trademark was used in advertising textile fiber products, without a full disclosure of the fiber content information required by the said Act and the Rules and Regulations thereunder in at least one instance in said advertisement, in violation of Rule 41(a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

B. A fiber trademark was used in advertising textile fiber products, containing more than one fiber and such fiber trademark did not appear in the required fiber content information in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fiber in plainly legible type or lettering of equal size and conspicuousness, in yviolation of Rule 41(b) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. C. A fiber trademark was used in advertising textile fiber products, containing only one fiber and such fiber trademark did not. appear, at least once in the said advertisement, in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fiber in plainly legible and conspicuous type, in violation of Rule 41(c) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

Pan. 16. The acts and practices of respondents as set forth above were and are in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, and now constitute unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices, 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, the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Textile Fiber Products Identification 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 CITY OF PARIS ET AL. 273 267 Decision and Order 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 City of Paris is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, with its office and principal place of business located at 199 Geary Street, San Francisco, California.

Respondents George De Bonis and Suzanne De Tesson are respectively president and chairman of the board of the corporate respondent and their address is the same as that of the corporate respondent. 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 City of Paris, a corporation, and its officers, and George De Bonis, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and Suzanne De Tesson, individually and as Chairman’ of the Board of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from introducing into commerce, or selling, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or transporting or distributing in commerce, any fur product; or selling, advertising, offering for sale, transporting or distributing 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: A. Unless each such fur product has securely affixed thereto a label:

1. Correctly 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.

Decision and Order 67 F.T.C.

2. Setting forth the term “Natural” as part of the information required 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. 3. Setting forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the sequence required by Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. B. To which is affixed a label:

1. Setting forth the name or names of any animal 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, 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. 3. Which fails to set forth the term “Broadtail Lamb” in the manner required where there has been an election to use that term instead of the word “Lamb.” 4. Setting forth information required under Section 4( 2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled with non-required information.

5. Setting forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting. Lt is further ordered, That respondents City of Paris, a corporation, and its officers, and George De Bonis, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and Suzanne De Tesson, individually and as Chairman of the Board of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate r other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or 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: Or CITY OF PARIS ET Al. 27 267 Decision and Order 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 “Broadtail Lamb” in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the word “Lamb.”

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.

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 the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

5. 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.

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.

3. Fails to disclose that fur products are composed in whole or substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, sides, flanks, gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap pieces or waste fur. It is further ordered, That. City of Paris, a corporation and its officers, and George De Bonis, individually and as an officer of said Decision and Order 67 E.T.C.

corporation, and Suzanne De Tesson, individually and as Chairman of the Board of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from introducing, delivering for introduction, selling, advertising, or offering for sale, in commerce, or transporting or causing to be transported in commerce, or importing into the United States, any textile fiber product; or selling, offering for sale, advertising, delivering, transporting, or causing to be transported, of any textile fiber product which has been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; or selling, offering for sale, advertising, delivering, transporting, or causing to be transported, after shipment in commerce, of any textile fiber product, whether in its original state or contained in other textile fiber products, as the terms “commerce” and “textile fiber product” are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act: A. Which is falsely or deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, invoiced, advertised or otherwise identified as to the name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein. B. Unless such textile fiber products have affixed thereto a label showing each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

It is further ordered, That City of Paris, a corporation, and its officers, and George De Bonis, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and Suzanne De Tesson, individually and as Chairman of the Board of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, delivery for introduction, sale, advertising or offering for sale, in commerce, or transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, or the importation into the United States, of any textile fiber product; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported, of any textile fiber product which has been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported, after shipment in commerce, of any textile fiber product, whether in its original state or contained in other textile fiber products, as the terms “commerce” and “textile fiber product” are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, do forthwith cease and desist from falsely and deceptively advertising textile fiber products by:

CREDIT AND INVESTIGATION BUREAU OF MD. ET AL. 277 Syllabus 1. Making any representations, directly or by implication, as to the fiber content of any textile fiber product in any written advertisement which is used to aid, promote, or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale of such textile fiber product, unless the same information required to be shown on the stamp, tag, label or other means of identification under Section 4(b) (1) and (2) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act is contained in the said advertisement, in the manner and form required, except that the percentages of the fibers present in the textile fiber product need not be stated. 2, Using a fiber trademark in advertisements without a full disclosure of the required content information in at least one instance in the said advertisement. , 3. Using a fiber trademark in advertising textile fiber products containing more than one fiber without such fiber trademark appearing in the required fiber content information in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fiber in plainly legible type or lettering of equal size and conspicuousness.

4. Using a fiber trademark in advertising textile fiber products containing only one fiber without such fiber trademark appearing at least once in the advertisement, in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fiber in plainly legible and conspicuous type.

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