Tarses-Gluckman lJoC. doing Bt'Sikess as Alaska1

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

IN THE ;VIA TTER OF TARSES-GLUCKMAN lJoC. DOING Bt'SIKESS AS ALASKA1\ ET AL.

COKSE'iT ORDER, ETC., I:' REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELlNG ACTS Docket C-115::. COliplaint, Dec. 27, lig-Deci.'ion, Dec. 1960 Consent order requiring two afTtliatcd Houston, Texas, retail furriers to cease misbranding, deceptively invoicing and falsely advertising: its fur products.

PLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the FL1 Products Labeling Act, and by virtue of thc authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that THrses-Gluckman, Inc. , a corpora- , Inc.tion, doing business as Alaskan, and Crest Frus of Houston a corporation, and Irvin Tarses, vVilbul' J. Gluckman, and Jules M. Davidson . individually and as offcers of said corporations hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur P1'ducts Labeling Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public intercst, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondents Tarses-Gluckman, Inc., doing business as Alaskan, and Crest Furs of Houston, Inc., are corporations organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas.

Respondents Irvin Tales, Wilbur J. Gluckman, and Jules M. Complaint 70 F.

Davidson are offcers of the corporate respondents. They formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondents including those hereinafter set forth. Respondents are retailers of fur products with their offce and principal place of business located at 606 Main Sb'eet, Houston Texas.

PAR 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondents acting in cooperation and conjunction with each other 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 djstribl1tion in commerce, of fur products: and have sold, ar1VE'l' tised, 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 violation 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 affxed to fur products, contained representations, either directly or by implication that the prices of such fur products 'were reduced from re pondents former prices and the amount of such purported reduction constituted savings to purchasers of respondents' fur products. hi truth and ill fact the alleged 1'o1'11e1' prices were fictitious in that they were not actual bona fide prices at which respondents offered the TJ1'oduds to the publie on a leg-ular basis 1m' 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 rcsponde11h' saiel fur products, as represented, PAR. 4. Certain of said fl1 products were mishranded in that they were not labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the marmcr and form Pl'cscriberi by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Among such misbnmded fur products, but not limited thereto, 'vvas a fur product \with a label which failed to show ths true animal name of the fur used in the fur product. PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products \were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not 18,- ALASKAN ET AL. 1727 1725 Compla int beled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder inasmuch as required item numbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 6. 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 Jimited thereto, was a fur product covered by an invoice which failed:

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

2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur product was bleached, dyed, OJ' otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

3. To show the country of origin of the imported fur used in the fur product.

PAR. 7. Certain of said fur pl' oducts were falsely and deceptively invoiced ,with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur fJ'm which the said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, \verc iur products which were invoiced as Broadtail" thereby implying that the furs contained therein were entitled to the designation /'Bl'oadtaiJ Lamb" when in truth and in fact the furs contained therein were not entitled to such designation.

PAR. 8. 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 RegllJations 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 Hules and Regulations. (b) The term "Pel' sian Lamb" was not set forth on invoices in the manner requil' ed by law, in violation of Rule 8 of said Rules and Regnlations.

(c) The term " Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth on invoices in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 10 of the said Itnes and Regulations. Complaint 70 F. T.

(d) 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.

(e) Information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth separately on invoices with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs, in violation of Rule 36 of said Rules and Regulations.

(f) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 9. 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 01' 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 aforesaid advertisements but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the Houston Chronicle, a newspaper published in the city of Houston, State of Texas and having a wide circulation in Texas and in other States of the United States. Among such false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto, was an advertisement which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur pl'duct.

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

3. To show the country of origin of imported fur contained in the fur product.

PAR. 10. By means of the afOlesaid 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 "Dyed Mouton Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required in violation of Rule 9 of the said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set ALASKA" ET AL. 1729 1725 Complaint forth in the manner required, in violation of Rule 10 of the said Rules and Regulations.

(c) 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. 11. 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 that certain of said fur products were falsely or 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 limited thereto, were fur products advertised as "Broadtail" thereby impl:;ing that the furs contained therein were entitled to the designation "Broadtail Lamb" when in truth and in fact the furs contained therein were not entitled to such designation.

PAR. 12. Respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products by affxing labels thereto which represented either directly or by implication that prices of such fur products were reduced from respondents' former prices and the purported reductions constituted savings to purchasers of respondents' fur products. In truth and in fact, the alleged former prices were fictitious in that they were not the actual bona fide prices at which respondents offered the fur 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 the represented savings were not thereby afforded to purchasers, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44 (a) of the Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 13. In advertising fur products for saJe, as aforesaid, respondents 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.

1730 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISI01\S Decision and Order 70 F. T. PAR. 14. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein a1Jeged, 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 al! 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 \vaiv€l's 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., makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent Tarses-Gluckman, Inc., doing business as Alaskan, is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas, with its offce and principal place of business located at 606 Main Street, Houston Texas.

Respondent Crest Furs of Houston, Inc., is a eOl'poTation organized, existing and doing uusiness under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas, with its offce and principal place of business located at 60G lVain Street, Houston, Texas. Respondents IJ'vin Ta1' ses, Wilbur .J. Gluckman and ,Jules M, Davidson are o!!cers of said corpoJ'ations and their addJ'ess is the same as that of said corporations.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the sub- ALASKAN ET AL. 1731 1725 Decision and Order ject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the pu blic interest.

ORDER It is arde)' That respondents Tarses-GJuckman, Inc. , a corporation, doing business as Alaskan, or under any other name, and its offcers, and Crest Furs of Houston, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and Irvin Tarses, Wilbur J. Gluckman and Jules M. Davidson, individually and as offcers of said corporations, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate OJ' other device, do forthwith cease and desist from introducing into commerce, selling, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or transporting or distributing in commerce any fur product: or from selling, advertising, offering for sale, transporting 01' distributing any fur product which made in whoJe 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 affxed to each such product a label showing- in words and in figures plainly legible all the 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 affxed a label required b ' Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder wl,jch fails to set forth the item number or mark Hssignect to each such fur product. It is further ordered That respondents Tarses-Gluckman, Inc. n corporation, doing business as Alaskan, or under any other name, and its offcers, and Crest Furs of Houston, Inc., a corporation and its offcers, and Irvin Tarses, vVilbul' J. GJuckman, and .Jules :!l. Davidson, individually and as offcers of said corporations, and respondents' 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 Emle in commerce, of any fur product; or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportabon 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 representing, directly or by implication on labels, that any price whether accompanied Decision and Order 70 F.

or not by descriptive terminology is the respondents' former price of fur products when such price is in excess of the price at which such fur products have been sold or offered for sale in good faith by the respondents in the recent regular course of business, or otherwise misrepresenting the price at which such fur products have been sold or offered for sale by respondents.

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 JegibJe a11 the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(b(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Setting forth on invoices pertaining to fur products any false or deceptive information with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in such fur product. 3. 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.

4. Failing to set forth the term "Persian Lamb" in the manner required where an ejection is made to use that term instead of the word "Lamb.

5. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" in ,the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words "Dyed Lamb.

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

7. Failng to set forth separately information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs.

8. Failng to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to each such fur product.

ALASKA:- ET AL. 1733 1725 Decision and Order 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 saJe, or offering for sale of any fur product, and which:

1. Fails to set forth in words and figures plainly JegibJe alj the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. 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. 3. Fails to set forth the term "Dyed Mouton Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words "Dyed Lamb. 4. Fails to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" in the manner required where an ejection is made to use that term instead of the words "Dyed Lamb.

5. 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 w.which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artifically colored.

6. Represents, directly or by implication, on labels or otherwise, that any price, whether accompanied or not by descriptive terminology is the respondents' former price of fur products when such price is in excess of the price at which such fur products have been sold or offered for sale in good faith by the respondents in the recent regular course of business, or otherwise misrepresents the price at which such fur products have been sold or offered for sale by respondents. 7. Misrepresents in any manner the savings available to purchasers of respondents' fur products. D. Failing to maintain full 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 is further ordend That the respondents herein shall, within Complaint 70 F.

sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, fiJe with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order.