Fabulous Products, Inc

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

IN THE MATTER OF FABULOUS PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL.

COKSEKT ORDER, IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FED- ERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1149. Complaint, Dec. 1966-Decision, Dee. , 1966 Consent order requiring a Miami Beach, Fla. , retail furrier to cease misbranding, hlscly 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 Fabulous Products, Inc., a corporation, and Samuel Berger, individually, as an offcer of said corporation and as an individual formerly trading as Samuel Berger Complaint 70 F.

Furs, 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 in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Fabulous Products, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the state of Florida.

Respondent Samuel Berger, individually and as an offcer of the said corporate respondent formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth.

Samuel Berger as an individual formerly traded as Samuel Berger Furs, Inc.

Respondents are manufacturers and retailers of fur products with their offce and principal place of business located at 546 Arthur Godfrey Road, Miami Beach, 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 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 there-under.Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto was a fur product with a label which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in such fur product.

2. To show that such fur product contained or was composed of used fur, when such was the fact.

3. To show that such fur product was composed in whole or in FABULOUS PRODUCTS , INC. , ET AL. 1497 1495 Complaint substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, or used fur, when such was the fact.

4. To show the name, or other identification issued and registered by the Commission, of one or more of the persons who manufactured such fur product for introduction into commerce, introduced it into commerce, sold it in commerce, advertised or offered it for sale, in commerce, or transported or distributed it in commerce.

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 artifically colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The disclosure "second-hand" was not set forth on labels as required, in violation of Rule 23 of said Rules and Regulations, (c) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in handwriting on labels, in violation Rule 29 (b) of said Rules and Regulations. (d) 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, (e) 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, was a fur product covered by an invoice which failed:

1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in such fur product.

2. To show that such fur product contained or was composed of used fur, when such was the fact.

3. To show the name of the country of origin of any imported furs contained in such fur product.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and decep- Complaint 70 F.

tively 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.

(b) The disclosure "second-hand" was not set forth on invoices, as required, in violation of Rule 23 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) ofthe said Act.

Among and included in the aforesaid advertisements but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the Miami News, a newspaper published in the city of Miami, State of Florida and having a wide circulation in Florida and other States of the United States. Among such false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in any such fur product.

2. To show that such fur products were composed of used fur when such was the fact.

3. To show the country of origin of any imported furs contained in such fur products.

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 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 in advertisements to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of the said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The disclosure "second-hand" was not set forth in adver- FABULOUS PRODUCTS, I)-C. , ET AL. 1499 1495 Decision and Order tisements as required in violation of Rule 23 of the said Rules and Regulations.

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 that refunds of purchase prices on fur products would be given under stated conditions when in truth and in fact the respondents refused to make refunds under the stated conditions, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 10. 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.

DECISIO)- 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 settlement 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, having reason to believe that the respondents have violated the said Acts, and having determined that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, hereby issues its complaint, accepts said agreement, make the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent Fabulous Products, 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 546 Arthur Godfrey Road, Miami Beach, Florida. Order 70 F.

Respondent Samuel Berger is an offcer of the corporate respondent and his address is the same as that of the corporate respondent. Samuel Berger as an individual formerly traded as Samuel Berger Furs.

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 Fabulous Products, Inc. , a corporation, and Samuel Berger, individually, as an offcer of said corporation and as an individual formerly trading as Samuel Berger Furs, or under any other name, and respondents' representatives, agents, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other 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 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. Failing 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. Failing 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 disclose that fur products contain or are composed of second-hand used fur.

4. Setting forth information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting on labels affxed to fur products, 5. Failing to set forth information required under FABULOUS PRODUCTS, INC. , ET AL. 1501 1495 Order 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.

6. 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: 1. Failing to furnish invoices, as the term "invoice " is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, showing in words and figures plainly Jegible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (J) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. 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.

3. Failing to disclose that fur products contain or are composed of second-hand used fur.

4. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number 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 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 Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which arc not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

3. Fails to disclose that fur products contain or are composed of second-hand used furs.

4. Hepresents directly or by implication that the respondents will refund the purchase price of a fur product under stated conditions unless the respondents refund Complaint 70 F.

the purchase price of such fur product under the stated conditions.

It is fUTtheT 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.