Harry Camp Millinery Co.

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

IN THE MATTER OF HARRY CAMP MILLINERY CO. ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-I025. Complaint, Dec. 1965-Decision, Dec. 1965 Consent order requiring a California retailer of wool and fur hats, operating approximately 200 leased departments in department stores in 23 States to cease misbranding its hats and falsely invoicing and advertising its fur products.

COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Harry Camp Milinery Company, a corporation, and Harry F. Camp, Jr., Meyer M. Camp and David L. Wilson, 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 the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 , 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:

PARAGRAPH 1. Harry Camp Milinery Company is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California. Their office and principal place of business is located at 140 Geary Street, San Francisco, California. Individual respondents Harry F. Camp, Jr. , Meyer M. Camp, and David L. Wilson are offcers of said corporation and formulate HARRY CAMP MILLINERY CQ. ET AL. 1147 1146 Complaint direct and control the acts, practices and policies of said corporation including those hereinafter set forth. Their address is the same as that of said corporation.

Respondents are retailers of wool and fur hats and operate approximately 200 leased departments in department stores in about 23 States.

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 fur which had been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labcling Act.

PAR. 3. 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 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 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:

1. The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth on labels in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

2. 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.

3. 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 Complaint 68 F.

PAR. 5. 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 show the country of origin of imported furs used in the fur products.

3. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur product was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

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: (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(9) of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 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 the said Act.

Among and included in the aforementioned advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the Los Angeles Times, a newspaper published in the city of Los Angeles, 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. HARRY CAMP MILLINERY CO. ET AL. 1149 1146 Decision and Order PAR. 8. 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 artiicially colored, in violation of Rule 19(9) of the said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 9. 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. 10. Subsequent to the effective date of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, respondents have introduced into commerce sold, transported, distributed, delivered for shipment and offered for sale in commerce as "commerce " is defined in said Act wool products as "wool product" is defined therein. PAR. 11. Certain of said wool products were misbranded in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified as required under the provisions of Section 4 (a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto were certain hats without labels on or affixed thereto disclosing the percentage of the total fiber weight of the wool product, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5 per centum of said total fiber weight, of (1) woolen fibers; (2) each fiber other than wool if said percentage by weight of such fiber is 5 per centum or more; and (3) the aggregate of all other fibers. PAR. 12. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth above were, and are in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constituted, and now constitute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce, within the intent and meaning of 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 Wool Products Decision and Order 68 F.

Labeling Act of 1939 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 agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Harry Camp YIilinery Company is a corporation theorganized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of laws of the State of California, with its office and principal place of business located at 140 Geary Street, San Francisco, California. Respondents Harry F. Camp, Jr., Meyer M. Camp and David L. Wilson are officers of said corporation and their 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 is ordered That respondents Harry Camp Milinery Company, a corporation, and its officers, and Harry F. Camp, Jr. , Meyer M. Camp and David L. Wilson, individually and as offcers of said , agents and corporation, and respondents ' representatives ployees, directly or through any corporate or other device, do forth- , selling, with cease and desist from introducing into commerce , or transporting or dis advertising or offering for sale in commerce tributing any fur product, in commerce; or from 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 there is securely affixed to each such product a label showing in words and in figures plainly legible all of the HARRY CAMP MILLINERY CO. ET AL. 1151 1146 Decision and Order information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. B. To which fur product is affixed a label required by Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder:

(1) Which fails to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtailprocessed Lamb" in the manner required where an elec. tion is made to use that term in lieu of the term "Dyed Lamb.

(2) Which fails 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 promulgated thereunder, to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

(3) Which fails 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 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

It is further ordered That respondents Harry Camp MjJinery Company, a corporation, and its officers, and Harry F. Camp, Jr" Meyer M. Camp and David L. Wilson, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or ot.her 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, 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 Information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

Decision and Order 68 F.

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

4. 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 a1l 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 Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

I t is further Qrdered That respondents Harry Camp Millinery Company, a corporation, and its officers, and Harry F. Camp, Jr., Meyer M. Camp and David L. Wilson, individual1ly and as officers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and doemployees, directly or through any corporate or other device, forthwith cease and desist from introducing into commerce, or offering for sale, selling, transporting, distributing or delivering for shipment in commerce, wool hats or other wool products as "commerce" and "wool product" are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 unless each such wool hat or other wool product has securely affixed thereto or placed thereon a stamp, tag, label or other means of identification correctly showing in a clear and conspicuous manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

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. E. J. KORVETTE , INC. 1153 Complaint