Fredericks Furs, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF FREDERICKS FURS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1114. Complaint, Sept. 1966-Decision, Sept. , 1966 Consent order requiring a Surfside, Fla. , 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 Fredericks Furs, Inc" a corporation and Jerry Lindenbaum and Sidney Gelfand, individually and as offcers 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 Fredericks Furs, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida.

Individual respondents Jerry Lindenbaum and Sidney Gelfand are offcers of the corporate respondent. They formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent including those hereafter set forth. Respondents are manufacturers and retailers of fur products with their offce and principal place of business located at 9565 Harding A venue, city of Surfside, State of Florida. 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 manufacture for 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 manufactured for sale, sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in FREDERICKS FURS, INC., ET AL. 707 706 Complaint 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 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 to show the true animal name of the fur used in any such fur product. 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:

(a) 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(9) of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) 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. (c) Required item numbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. 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 to show the true animal name of the fur used in any such fur product.

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) 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.

.

Complaint 70 F.

(b) 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 tbe 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 aforesaid advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the Miami Herald, a newspaper published in the city of Miami, State of Florida.

Among such false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements which failed to show the true animal name of the fur used in any such fur product. PAR. 8, By means of the aforesaid advertisements and other advertisements of similar import and meaning not specifically refen' ed 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 "Was $3650- Now $1900 "that the prices of 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 the alleged former prices were fictitious in that tbe said fur products were not reduced in price as represented and savings were not afforded purchasers of respondents ' fur products as represented. 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 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 artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of the said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 10. In advertising fur products for sale, as aforesaid, respondents made pricing claims and representations of the types FREDERICKS FURS , INC., ET AL. 709 706 Decision and Order 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 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 in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION AND ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondents named in the caption hereof, and the respondents having been furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Textiles and Furs proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondents that the law has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission s rules; and The Commission, baving reason to believe that the respondents have violated said Acts, and having determined that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, hereby issues its complaint, accepts said agrcement, makes the following jurisdictional findings and enters the following order: 1. Respondent Fredericks Furs, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida, with its offce and principal place of business located at 9565 Harding Avenue, Surfside, Florida. Respondents Jerry Lindenbaum and Sidney Gelfand are offcers of said corporation and their address is the same as that of said corporation.

_ _ Decision and Order 70 F, 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 o?'dered That respondents Fredericks Furs, Inc. , a corporation, and its offcers, and Jerry Lindenbaum and Sidney Gelfand, individually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or oth€r device, in connection with the introduction, or manufacture for 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 manufacture for sale, sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution, of any fur product which is made in whole or in part of fur whicb has been shipped and and "fur received in commerce, as the terms 'j commerce fur" product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. Misbranding fur products by:

1. Failng to affx labels to fur products 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. 2. Failng 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. Failing 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.

4. Failing to set forth on labels the item number or mark assigned to each such fur product.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: I. 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 by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. FREDERICKS FURS , INC., ET AL. 711 706 Decision and Order 2. 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.

3, Failing to set forth on invoices the item or mark assigned to each such fur product.

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 an the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Uses the word "was" 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 respondents in the recent regular course of their business, or otherwise misrepresents the prices at which such merchandise has been sold, or offered for sale by respondents.

3. Misrepresents in any manner the savings available to purchasers 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 Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artifically colored.

D. Failing to maintain fun and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which pricing claims and representations of the types described in subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, are based.

It ':8 further ordered That the respondents herein shan, 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. Order 70 F. T.