Morris Roberts trading as Roberts-Liebes Furs

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

In THe Marrer oF MORRIS ROBERTS rravineg As ROBERTS-LIEBES FURS * CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-908. Complaint, June 8, 1965—Decision, June 8, 1965 Consent order requiring a San Francisco, Calif., furrier to cease misbranding, falsely invoicing and advertising 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 Morris Roberts, an individual, trading as Roberts-Liebes Furs, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has 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 Morris Roberts is an individual trading as Roberts-Liebes Furs.

Respondent is a retailer of fur products with his office and principal place of business located at Sutter and Grant, city of San Francisco, State of California.

ROBERTS-LIEBES FURS 989 988 Complaint Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondent has been and is 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 has 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 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, contained representations, either directly or by implication that the prices of such fur products were reduced from respondent’s former prices and the amount of such purported reduction constituted savings to purchasers of respondent’s fur products. In truth and in fact, the alleged former prices 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 and the said fur products were not reduced in price as represented and savings were not afforded purchasers of respondent’s said fur products, as represented. Par. 4. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondent in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and 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. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced 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 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products which were invoiced as “Dyed Complaint 67 F.T.C.

China Mink” when, in fact, the fur contained in such product was “Dyed Japanese Mink.”

Also among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products which were invoiced as “Broadtail” thereby implying that the furs contained therein were entitled to the designation “Broadtail Lamb” when in truth and in fact they were not “entitled to such designation. Par. 6. 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: (2) 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 “Dyed Broadtail- processed Lamb” was not set forth on invoices in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) The term énatural” w 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. 7. 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 said Act.

Among and included in the aforesaid advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondent which appeared in issues of the San Francisco Examiner, a newspaper published in the citv of San Francisco, State of California. 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. 8. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein respondent 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 ROBERTS-LIEBES FURS 991 988 Complaint 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.

Par. 9. Respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products by affixing labels thereto which represented either directly or by implication that prices of such fur products were reduced from respondent’s former prices and the amount of such purported reduction constituted savings to purchasers of respondent’s fur products. In truth and in fact, the alleged former prices were fictitious in that they were not the actual, bona fide prices at which respondent offered the fur products to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of busihess 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. 10. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and other advertisements of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44(a) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder by representing, directly or by implication, through statements appearing in newspapers such as “our ENTIRE STOCK OF FINE FURS REDUCED 1/3 TO 1/2 OFF” and “FINAL WEEK OF OUR FUR SALE— OUR ENTIRE STOCK IS REDUCED,” that the prices of such fur products were reduced from the actual bona fide prices at which the respondent offered the products to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business and the amount of such purported reductions constituted savings to purchasers of respondent’s fur products. In truth and in fact the purported reductions were fictitious in that they were not reduced from the actual bona fide prices at which respondent had offered the products to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business and the said fur products were not reduced in prices as represented and savings were not afforded purchasers of respondent’s fur products as represented.

Par. 11. In advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid respondent represented through such statements as “our ENTIRE STOCK OF FINE FURS REDUCED 1/3 TO 1/2 orr” that prices of fur products were reduced in direct proportion to the percentage stated and that the amount of said reduction afforded savings to the purchasers of respondent’s Decision and Order. 67 E.T.C.

products when in fact such prices were not reduced in direct proportion to the percentage stated and the represented savings were not: thereby afforded to the purchasers, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Par. 12. In advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid, respondent 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. Respondent in making such claims and representations failed to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations were based, in violation of Rule 44(e) of the said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 13. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the: Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constituted 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 respondent named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondent 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 respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondent 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 respondent 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 Morris Roberts is an individual trading as Roberts- Liebes Furs with his office and principal place of business located at, Sutter and Grant, city of San Francisco, State of California. & ROBERTS-LIEBES FURS 993 ‘988 Decision and Order 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER Jt is ordered, That respondent Morris Roberts, an individual, trading as Roberts-Liebes Furs, or under any other trade name, and respondent’s 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. Misbranding fur products by:

1. Representing, directly or by implication on labels, that any price, whether accompanied or not by descriptive terminology, is the respondent’s former price of fur products, unless respondent is able to establish that the represented price is the actual, bona fide price at which respondent 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. Misrepresenting in any manner on labels or other means of identification the savings available to purchasers of respondent’s fur products.

8. Falsely or deceptively representing in any manner, directly or by implication, on labels or other means of identification that prices of respondent’s fur products are reduced.

B. 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. 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 produced the fur contained in such fur product.

Decision and Order 67 ELT.C.

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 artificially colored.

C. 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. 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 Regulalations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise: artificially colored.

3. Represents, directly or by implication, that any price, whether accompanied or not by descriptive terminology, is: the respondent’s former price of fur products, unless respondent is able to establish that the represented price is the actual, bona fide price at which respondent 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. Represents, directly or by implication, through percentage savings claims that prices of fur products are reduced to afford purchasers of respondent’s fur products the percentage of savings stated, unless respondent is able to establish that the prices of such fur products are reduced. to afford purchasers the percentage of savings stated. iis) Ne) Or JOSEPH GALLER, INC., ET AL, 988 Complaint 5. Misrepresents in any manner the savings available to purchasers of respondent’s fur products. 6. Falsely or deceptively represents in any manner that prices of respondent’s 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 respondent full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based.

It is further ordered, That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon him of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he has complied with this order.