Morris B. Sachs, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF MORRIS B. SACHS, INC. , ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER , ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FlJR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C- 1002. Complal:nt. Oct. 1965-Decision . Oct. 14. 1965 Consent order requiring Chicago. Ill., retailers of fur products. to cease misbranding, falsely invoicing, and deceptively advertising their fur products in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act. j 578 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSro DECISIONS Complaint 68 F.

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 B. Sachs, Inc., a corporation and Morris B. Sachs, Jr. and Benjamin Schwab, 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 respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Morris B. Sachs, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of IJinois.

Respondents Morris B. Sachs, Jr. , and Benjamin Schwab are officers of the corporate respondent and formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth. Respondents are retailers of fur products with their office and principal place of business located at 6638 South Halsted Street Chicago, IJinois.

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 trans portation 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 misbranded in vio- Jation 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 product, contained representations, either directly or by implication through comparative prices under the designations of "Reg" and "Now " that the prices of such fur products were reduced from respondents former prices in recent regular course of business and the amount of such purported reduction constituted savings to purchasers of respondents' fur products. In truth and in fact, the alleged former ORRIS B. SACHS, INC. , ET AL. 579 577 Complaint prices were false and deceptive in that they were not the 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. The said fur products were not reduced in prices as represented, nor were savings afforded purchasers of respondents' fur products as represented. The alleged former prices were the prices at which the products had been offered to the public at a remote period in the past and such prices underwent intermediate mark downs at substantial periods of time before the products were offered to the public at the "Reg and "Now " prices.

PAR. 4. 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 in invoices which failed to show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product.

PAR. 5. Certain of said fur porducts 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 Regu- Jations 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 , in vio-thereunder was set forth on invoices in abbreviated form lation 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 the said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 6. 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 saJe and offering for sale of such fur products were not in accordanee 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 Chicago Tribune, a newspaper published in the city of Chicago, State of Ilinois.

By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar Complaint 68 F.

import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that certain of said fur products were 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 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Among such falsely and deceptively advertised fur products, but not Jimited thereto, were fur products advertised 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 cntitJed to such designation.

PAR. 7. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and other advertisements of similar import and meaning not spccificaJly referred to herein respondents 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 "Mink Stores reg. $589 - now $399 " that the prices 0'1 such fur products were reduced from the actual bona fide prices at which the 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 amount of such purported reductions constituted savings to purchasers of respondents' fur products. In truth and in fact thc alleged former prices were fictitious in that they were not reduced from the actual bona fide prices at which respondents 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 price as represented and savings were not afforded purchasers of respondents' fur products as represented.

PAR. 8- Respondents 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 affixing Jabels thereto which represented either directly or by implication through comparative prices under the designations "Reg" and "Now" that the prices of such fur products were reduced from respondents' former prices in the recent regular course of business and the amount of such purported reduction constituted savings to purchasers of respondents' fur products. In truth and in fact, the alleged former prices were false and deceptive in that they were not the actual, bona fide prices at which the respondents offered the products to the public on a regular basis for MORRIS B. SACHS , INC. , ET AL. 581 577 Decision and Order a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business. The said fur products were not reduced in prices as represented, nor were savings afforded purchasers of respondents fur products as represented. The alleged former prices were the prices at which the products had been offered to the public at a remote period in the past and such prices underwent intermediate mark downs at substantial periods of time before the products were offered to the public at the "Reg" and "Now" prices. 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: (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 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. 10. In advertising fur products for saJe as aforesaid, responden ts 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 claims and representations were based, in violation of Rule 44(e) of the said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 11. 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 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 Decision and Order 68 F.

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 aJ1 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 Jaw had 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 foJ1owing jurisdictional findings, and enters the foJ1owing order:

1. Respondent Morris B. Sachs, Inc., is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the State of Ilinois, with its office and principal place of business Jocated at 6638 South Halsted Street, Chicago, Ilinois. Respondents Morris B. Sachs, Jr. , and Benjamin Schwab are officers 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 is ordered That respondents Morris B. Sachs, Inc. , a corporation, and its officers, and Morris E. Sachs, Jr. , and Benjamin Schwab, 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 in 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 and 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. Using the word "Reg," or words of similar import to refer to any amount which is in excess of the price at which such merchandise has been sold or offered for sale MORRIS B. SACHS, INC. , ET AL. 583 577 Decision and Order in good faith by the respondents in the recent regular course of their business, or otherwise misrepresenting the price at which such merchandise has been sold or offered for sale by respondents.

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

B. Falsely or deceptively invoieing 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 Jegible aJ1 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 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.

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

1. Falsely or deceptively identifies any such product as .to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product. 2. Uses the word "Reg, " or words of similar import to refer to any amount which is in excess of the price at which such merchandise has been sold oc offered for sale in good faith by the respondents in the recent regular course of their business, or otherwise misrepresenting the price at which such merchandise has been sold or offered for sale by respondents.

3. Misrepresents in any manner the savings available to purchasecs of respondents' fur products. 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 Complaint 68 F.

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

5. 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.

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 respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based.

I t is further ordered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this ordel', file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order.