Rosin-Starr, Inc., et al.

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

IN Tile !VA TTER OF ROSIN-STARR, J:-C. , ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COM1JJSSlO?\' A?-' D THE FUR PRODPCTS LABELI:, ACTS Docket C-117(, Complaint, Peb. 20, 1967-Vec1sion, Feb. 20 , 1.967 Consent order requiring a Chicago, Illinois, manufacturing and retailing Complaint 71 F.

furrier to cease misbranding, falsely advertising, and deceptively invoicing 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 Rosin-Starr, Ine. , a corporation, and Herman \Viznel', individually and as an offcer 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 in ,'espect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Rosin-Starr. Inc. ) is a corpol'2.tion organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Illinois.

Respondent Herman Niznel' is an offcer of the corporate respondent. He formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent including- those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are manufacturers and retailers of fur products with their offce and principal place of business located at 645 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Ilinois. 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 n1anufactured for sale, sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole 01' 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 pl'ducts were misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely or deceptively identified in that conflicting information appeared on the labels, in violation of Section 4 (l) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto , ROSIN-STARR, INC. , ET AL. 271 269 Complaint were fur products labeled with the description "natural brightener added chinchila.

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise 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 4 (1) of the Fur P,'oducts Labeling Act.

Among- such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto were fur products labeled as "Broadtail" thereby implying 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. P AK 5. 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 any such fur product.

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

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

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur jJroducts 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 "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth on labels in the manner required by Jaw, in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) 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.

(c) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth separately on labels with respect to each section of fur p:coducts composed of two or more sections 272 FEDERAL ~'TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint 71 F.

containing different animal furs, in violation of Rule 36 of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 7. 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 any such fur product.

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

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

PAR. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that respondents set forth on invoices pertaining to fur products the name of an animal other thrm the name of the animal that produced thc fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 9. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced with respect in the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which thc 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, \were fur products which \were invoiced as Broadtail" thereby implying 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. HI. 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 iol1owing respects; (a) The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth on invoices in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 10 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, ROSIN-STARR, INC., ET AL. 273 269 Complaint or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) 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. 11. 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 respondents which appeared in issues of the Chicago Tribune, a newspaper published in the city of Chicago, State of llinois, and having a wide circulation in Ilinois and in other States of the United States. 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. PAR. 12. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of sin1ilar 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 Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required, in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The term "natural" was not used to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially enlored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of the said Rules and Regulations.

(c) All parts of the information required under Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder were not set forth in type of equal size and eonspicuousncss and in close proximity with each other, in violation of Rule 38 (a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. PAR. 13. 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.

274 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIO Decision and Order 71 F, 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, having- reason to believe that the respondents have violated said Ads, and having determined that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, hereby issues its complaint, accepts said ag-reement, makes the following- jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. R spondent Rosin-Starr, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Illinois, with its offce and principal place of business located at 545 :'orth :\Iichigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. Respondent Herman vVizner is an offcer of the said corporation and his 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 Rosin-Starr, Inc. , a corporation and its officers, and Herman Wizner, individually and as an oft-jeer of said corporation, 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 ROSIN-STARR, INC., ET AL. 275 269 Decision and Order 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 any fur product by:

1. Setting forth conflicting information on a label affixed to such fur products.

2. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying such fur product as to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product.

8. Failing to affx a label to such fur product 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. 4. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtailprocessed Lamb" on a label in the manner required where an election is made to use that term in lieu of the term "Dyed Lamb.

5. Failing to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on a label under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

6. Failing to set forth separately a label attached to such fur product composed of two or more sections containing different animal fur the information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to the fur comprising each section. B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing any fur product by: 1. Failing to furnish an invoice, 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. 2. Setting forth on an invoice pertaining to such fur product the name or names of any animal or animals other than the name of the animal producing the fur contained in the fur product as specified in the Fur Prod- 276 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIO:-S Decision and Order 71 F. ucts ~ ame Guide, and as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations.

3. Setting forth on an invoice pertaining to such fur product 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. 4. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtailprocessed Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words "Dyed Lamb.

5. Failing to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on an invoice under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe such product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

6. Failing to set forth on an invoice the item number or mark assigned to such fur product.

C. Falsely or deceptively advertising any fur product through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement 01' 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 "Dyed Broadtailprocessed Lamb" in the manner required \vhere an election is made to use that term instead of the words "Dyed Lamb.

3. 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 any fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

4. Fails to set forth all parts of the information required under Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in type of equal size and conspicuousness and in close proximity with each other.

C. F. CARLSON CO. ET AL. 277 269 Complaint It ,,8 jurther 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.