Ogus, Rabinovich & Ogus, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF OGl':S , RABINOVICH & OGUS, INC.

eOXSENT ORDER, ETe. , IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE eommission AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1032. Complaint, Jan. 14, 196G-Decision, Jan. 14, 1966 Consent order requiring a New York City retailer of fur products to cease fal eIy invoicing its fur products by omitting and abbreviating required information and deceptively advertising said products, including mink hats, by using nctitious pricing claims. 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 Ogus, Rabinovich & Ogus, Inc. , a corporation, 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: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Ogus, Rabinovich & Ogus, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. Respondent is a retailer of fur products with its offce and principal place of business located at 304 East 45th Street, Kew York Kew York.

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 saJe 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, aR the terms "commerce fur " and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

OGUS, ROBINOVICH & OGUS , INe.

Complaint PAR. 3. 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 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 invoieed 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 the 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. 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 advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondent which appeared in issues of the Knoxvile Xews-Sentinel, a newspaper published in the city of Knoxvile, State of Tennessee. 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 "Sale Mink Hats- Days Only! Friday, Saturday and Monday-$19.90-Regularly $29. 99 to $39.99, " that the prices of such fur products were reduced from the actual bona fide prices at which the respondent FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DEeISIONS Decision and Order 69 F.

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 alleged former prices were fictitious in that the said fur products were not reduced in price as represented and savings were not afforded purchasers of respondent's fur products as represented.

PAR. 6. 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 said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 7. 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 constitute 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 not 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 OGUS, ROBINOVICH & OGUS , INC.

Order agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Ogus, Rabinovich & Ogus, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 304 East 45th Street, '" ew York, K ew York.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subect matter of this proceeding and of the respondent, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered That respondent Ogus, Rabinovich & Ogus, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, 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. 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 aD 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. Failng 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.

4. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to fur products.

FEDERAL TRADE eommission DECISIONS Complaint 69 F.

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

1. Uses the word "regularly" 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 in good faith by the respondent in the recent regular course of its business, or otherwise misrepresents the prices at which such merchandise has been sold, or offered for sale by respondent. 2. Misrepresents in any manner the savings available to purchasers of respondent' s fur products. 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 respondent fun 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 it of this order, file with the the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with this order.