Crown Tuft, Inc., et al.

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

IN THE :YIATTER OF CRO\VK TUFT, lnc., ET AL.

CO:-SENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICA TIO:- ACTS Docket C-1192. Complaint April 1967-LJecision April 1967 Consent order requiring a Dalton, Ga.) manufacturer or carpet rolls to cease misbranding its textile fiber products.

650 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIOI\ DECISIONS Complaint 71 F.

COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission and byrd and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Crown Tuft, Inc. , a corporation, and Arthur B. Lauman and James C. Barbre 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 Textile Fiber Products Identification 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 Crown Tuft, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Georgia. Its offce and principal place of business is located at 444 North Hamilton Street, Dalton, Georgia. Individual respondents Arthur B. Lauman and James C. Barbre are offcers of said corporate respondent. They formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of the said corporation. Their offcc and principal place of business is the same as that of said corporate respondent.

The respondents are engaged in the manufacture and sale of carpet rolls.

PAR. 2. Subsequent to thc effective date of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act on March 3 , 1960, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction, manufacture for introducbon, sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, and the importation into the , offered United States, of textile fiber products; and have sold for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, textile fiber products, which have been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; and have said, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, after shipment in commerce, textile fiber products, either in their original state or contained in other textile fiber products; as the terms commerce" and "textile fiber product" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

PAR. 3. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules , % CROWN TVFT, INC., ET AL. 651 649 Complaint and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, invoiced, advertised, or otherwise identified as to the name or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein.

Among such textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were carpet rolls labeled by respondents as "% acrylic, 13 wool nylon " whereas, in truth and in fact, such carpet rolls contained substantially different types and amounts of fibers than as represented.

PAR. 4. Certain of said textile fiber products were further misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged labeled, or otherwise identified as to each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were carpet rolls with labels which failed: (1) To disclose the true generic name of the fibers present; and (2) To disclose the true percentage of the fibers present by weight.

PAR. 5. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) In disclosing the constituent fibers in the required information, in instances other than those permitted by Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, a textile fiber present in the amount of less than five per centum of the textile fiber weight of the said textile fiber product, was not designated by the term "other fiber " in violation of Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

(b) Required information was set forth on labels in an abbreviated form in instances other than as Rule 33 (d) of the Rules and Regulations, in violation of Rule 5 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) Fiber trademarks were used on labels without a full and complete nber content disclosure appearing OD such labels in accordance with the said Act and Regulations, the first time such fiber trademarks were used on the labels, in violation of Rule 17 (b) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. PAR. 6. The acts and practices of respondents, as set forth above were, and are, in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated Decision and Order 71 F. thereunder, and constituted, and now constitute, unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices 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 Textile Fiber Products Identification 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 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 Crown Tuft, Inc. , is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Georgia, with its offce and principal place of business located at 444 North Hamilton Street, Dalton, Georgia. Respondents Arthur B. Lauman and James C. Barbre are officers of said corporation and their 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 Crown Tuft, Inc. , a corporation and its offcers, and Arthur B. Lauman and James C. Barbre individually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents CROWN TUFT, INC., ET AL. 653 649 Decision and Order representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction delivery for introduction, manufacture for introduction, sale, advertising, or offering for sale, in commerce, or the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, or the importation into the United States of any textile fiber product; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation or causing to be transported, of any textile fiber product which has been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported, after shipment in commerce, of any textie fiber product, whether in its original state or contained in other textile fiber products, as the terms "commerce" and "textile fiber product" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding textile fiber products by: 1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, invoicing, advertising, or otherwise identifying such products as to the names or amount of constituent fibers contained therein.

2. Failing to affx labels to such textile fiber products showing in a clear, legible and conspicuous manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. 3. Failing to designate on labels any fiber or fibers, present in the amount of less than five per centum of the total fiber weight of such textile fiber products, by the term "other fiber" or "other fibers " except as permitted by Section 4 (b) of the 1;textile Fiber Products Identification Act. 4. Setting forth required information on labels in an abbreviated form in violation of Rule 5 (a) of the Rules and Regulations, in instances other than as permitted by Rule 33 (d) of such Rules and Regulations.

5. Setting forth a generic name or fiber trademark on a label without making a full and complete content disclosure the flrst time the generic name or fiber lrademark appears on the label.

It is turther 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. 654 FEDERAL TRADE COMmSSIO DECISIONS Complaint 71 F.

THE MATTER OF H. L. WHITING COMPANY ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-l1.9iJ. C(1)plnint, April J 1 , 1 f)(j'I'- lJecisio'n, April, 1 %7 Consent order requiring a Los Angeles, Calif. , clothing manufs.cturer to cease misrepresenting the fiber content of its \Vaal products on labels and in advertisements.

COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Fee/eral Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 , and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Tmde Commission, having reason to believe that H. L. vVhiting Company, a corporation, and Paul H. Blanton and Stanley W. Sharpe, individually and as offcers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts am! the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Waoi F1'ducts Labeling Act of 1939, 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 H. L. \Vhiting Company is a corporation organized, existing; Had doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California. Its oflice and l)rincipa! place of business is located at 230 West Avenue Twenty-six Los Angeles, California. Individual respondents Paul I-I. Bbnton and Stanley W. Sharpe are offcers of said corporate respondent. They formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of said corporate respondent, including those complained of herein. Their offce and principal place of business is the: same as that of the corporate respondent.

Said respondents manufact",.c and distribute wool products among which are athletic award jackets and elothing. PAR. 2. Now and for some time last past, respondents have manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced into commerce, sold, transported, distributed, delivered for shipment shipped, and offered for sale in commerce, as "commerce " is de- H. L. WHITING CO. ET AL. 655 651 Complaint fined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, wool products as "wool product" is defined therein.

PAR 3. Certain of said wool products were mishranded by the respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a) (1) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified with respect to the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained therein.

Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto were men s jackets stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified by respondents to show that certain portions thereof were composed of "90S/) reprocessed wool and 10% other fibers " whereas in truth and in fact, said products contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than represented. PAR. 4. Certain of said wool products were further misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identHied as required under the provisions of Section 4 (a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto were wool products with labels on or affxed thereto which failed to disclose the percentages of the total fiber weight of the said ,\yool products, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5 % the total fiber weight, of (1) wool; (2) reprocessed wool; (3) reused wool; (1) each fiber other than wool, when said percentage by weight of such fiber was 5% or more; and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers.

PAR. 5. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth above were, and are, in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, and now constitute, unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices, in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 6. Respondents are now, and for some time last past, have been engaged in the offering for sale, sale and distribution of certain products, namely athletic jackets and clothing to purchasers thereof. In the course and conduct of their business respondents now cause, and for some time last past have caused, their said products when sold, to be shipped from their place of business in the State of California to purchasers thereof in various Decision and Order 71 F. other States of the United States and maintain, and at all times mentioned herein have maintained a substantial course of trade in said products in commerce, as "commerce " is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 7. In the course and conduct of their business in soliciting the sale and selling their products, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised their said products in catalogues distributed to customers throughout the United States, with respect to the character and amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. Among such false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements representing their said products as containing 10070 wool, whereas in truth and in fact, said products contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than as represented.

PAR. 8. In the conduct of their business, at all times mentioned herein, respondents have been in substantial competition, in commerce, with corporations, firms and individuals in the sale of wool products of the same general kind and nature as those sold by respondents.

PAR. 9. The use by respondents of the aforesaid false, misleading and deceptive statements, representations and practices has had, and now has, the capacity and tendency to mislead dealers and other purchasers into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said statements and representations were, and are, true and into the purchase of substantial quantities of respondents ' products by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief. PAR. 10. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents as herein alleged were, and are, to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents' competitors, and constituted, and now constitute unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce in violation of Section 5 (a) (1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. DECISIOI\ AI\D 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 Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939; and H. L. WHITING CO. ET AL. 657 654 Decision and Order 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 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 H. L. Whiting Company is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the State of California, with its offce and principal place of business located at 230 West A venue Twenty-six, Los Angeles California.

Respondents Paul H. Blanton and Stanley W. Sharpe are officers of said corporation and their 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 H. L. Whiting Company, a corporation, and its offcers, and Paul H. Blanton and Stanley W. Sharpe, individually and as offcers 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 offering for sale, sale, transportation, distribution, delivery for shipment or shipment, in commerce, of wool products, as commerce " and "wool product" are defined in the \-Vool Products Labeling Act of 1939 , do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding such products by:

1. Falsely and deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, or othenvise identifying such products as to the character or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. 2. Failing to securely affx to, or place on, each such product a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification %? Complaint 71 F.

correctly sho\ving in a clear and conspicuous manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4(a) (2) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939. It is further ordered That respondents H. L. WJ1iting Com pan)', a corporation, and its offcers, and Paul H. Blanton and Stanley \V. Sharpe, individually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents ' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of their products in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from misrepresenting the character or amount of constituent fibers contained in jackets or any other textile products in advertisements or in any other manner.

It is tw-twr ordered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in '\Titing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order. IN THE IA TTER OF ALLAN LAWRENCE DOING G B GSl ESS AS CROWN MUSIC CmIF A?\Y CONSENT ORDElt, ETC. , 11' REGARD '10 THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSI01' ACT Docket. C-1IfJ . Comp/m . Api". Deci.'Ji oil, Api". 12 , 19!ii Consent order requiring a New York City promoter of song-wriiing services to cease misrepresenting- the nature of his services, the potential commercial value of the poems submitted, his connections in the music publishing field, and his own musical background and. accomplishments" COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by saio Act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Allan Lawrence, also known as Larry AJlen, doing business as Crown l\lusic Company, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated the provisions of saio Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the CROWN MUSIC CO. 659 658 Complaint public interest, hereby issues its complaint, stating it charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Allan Lawrence, also known as Larry Allen, is an individual doing business as Crown :Music Company with his offce and principal place of business located at 49 West 32nd Street, "ew York, "ew York, 10001. PAR. 2. Respondent is now, and for some time last past has been, engaged in the advertising, offering for sale and sale of song'lvTiting services to the public.

Respondent, under the name Crown Iusic Company, advertises that poems are wanted which can be set to music and solicits the public to send in poems for free examination. Persons submitUng poems in response to the advertisement receive a form letter stating that their poems have been examined and found suitable for adapting to respondent's music. A blank contract enclosed with the letter provides that in consideration of the payment of S39 Crown ?I'usic Company will compose music for the poem consisting of a professional manuscript voice and piano arrangement and will obtain a copyright for the song in the author s name. Also enclosed with the letter accepting the poem is a brochure and other printed materials holding out the promise of a professional song'\writing career with the " collabOl' ation " of the respondent. After the inital services are completed the author of the poem conbnues to receive other promotional material from respondent urging that he avail himself of additional services upon payment of additional sums, designed to promote the song commercially.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of his business respondent now causes, and for some time last past has caused, iJlank contracts to be transmitted from his place of business in the State of K ew York, through the United States mails, to prospective purchasers of his services located in various States of the United States, receives from said persons executed contracts and payments and sends to them the con:.pleted song manuscripts. Respondent maintains, and at all times mentioned herein has maintained, a substantial course of trade, in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act. PAR. 4, In the course and conduct oJ his business, and for the purpose of inducing the purchase of his services, respondent hBS made various statements and representations in contact advcrtising in magazines of national circulation and in followup direci mail promotional material respecting the nature of the services offered, the potential commercial value of poems submitted, his 660 FEDERAL TRADE CO)!MISSION:- DECISIONS Complaint 71 F.

collaboration with authors of poems, his contacts in the music field, the commercial success of songs produced and promoted by him, and his musical accomplishments, background and connection with the music world.

Among and typical, but not all inclusive, of said statements and representations, are the following:

The contact advertisements:

POEMS WANTED TO BE SET TO MUSIC Sene! one or more of your best poems today for FREE EXAMIXATION. Any subject. Immediate consideration.

Phonograph records made.

Crown Music Co. , 49 W 32nd St., Studio 560 New York 1.

POEMS WANTED for songs Send poems.

Crown Music Co.

POE)!S W AXTED for musical setting and recording. Send poems. Free Examination. Crown )Iusic, 49M West 32, :\ew York 1.

The tollowup direct mail promotional mate1'ial: Dear Friend:

:dany thanks for submitting your material to us. We have examined your lyrics and will be glad to collaborate with you. " " We ,vil! compose an appropriatf' and appealing melody for your words, in an up-to-date, professional manner. Your poem .will thus become a complete song.

CROWK MUSIC COMPANY offers you competent, sincere, and professional aid of the highest type available, in the complete preparation of your songs.

\Ve sincerely believe that we are best equipped to work with you in your song writing efforts. And we are right here in Nev.r Yark, the center of the music publishing and recording business. The smail amount we ask you to pay toward collaboration expenses is your investment in the work of your O"\'n creation. Don t delay! Your decision to act no\\ may be the One most important step to get you started 011 a career .with amazing possibilities for F A'11E and FORTL'IoE.

IMPORTAI\T MESSAGE TO EVERY WRITER OF SONG POEMS Here is your opportunity to have your poems set to music by professional songwriters. Our plan is simple. Submit one or more of your poems to us for free examination. If we find them suitable for musical setting, we will so , \\ CROWN MUSIC CO. 661 658 Complaint advise you and give you full details and information. If we find them unsuitable, we will tell you so, and return your poems promptly. In either case you are under no obligation, so you have nothing to lose. But ::' ,: '" you may have much to gain. CROWN MeSIC COMPANY is one of the foremost profcssionaJ composing and arranging studios in the field. Our staff is ready to work with you to develolJ your poem into a fine song. \Ve study your IJoem, revise it where necessary and set it to music, " '" with a good attractive, commercial melody.

The amazing demand for phonograph records and songs by new writers means a greatcr opportunity for you today than ever before. Take advantage of it .; :' * now! The first step is to send us your song lyrics. Ho,,, You Can Open the Door to a SONG WRITING CAREER DO YOU WANT TO MAKE MOKEY IN SOKG WRITING? This Exceptional Plan Enables You to Transform Your Poem into a Professionally Correct and Polished Song. A MINIMUM:\I OF EXPEKSE Gets You Started on a Song \Writing Career.

A GREAT DEAL OF MOXEY is being made in the songwriting business. A single song hit can make OOO or S20 OOO, or even more for its \vriters some of the songs which reach the top every season are songs by new composers and lyricists. "Cnknown " " , Tlu; door is now o7Jen to new writers. Writc?S' like yoa1"self.

MAXY WRITERS, perhaps like yourself, lJroduee some really good poems. Poems that may be excellent material for a song. But an undeveloped lyric or poem is not marketable. Not until it is set to good music *' * * with good music it becomes a potential hit, a money-maKf' TO SUCCEED you need l)Tofessional help. There are definite standards and requirements that must be met in order to produce a good commercial song. ., .

HOW TO GET STARTED' , , It is impo1'tant for you, as a songwriter to select a collaborator who can supply a melody that meets professional stanclanjs " and one who can give you advice and guidance in your songwriting carcer. CROWN MUSIC COMPANY does these things for you. When we receive your poem we study it very carefully e develop it "' '" , polish it up '" * *' bring out the best in it '" '" do what a professional writer would do '" , * Then we write a melody a good conmwJ':ial, attractive melody which has appeal. Your poem "' gets that J)Joiessionai touch! SELECTING THE RIGHT COLLABORATOR IS nlPORTAKT '" * ' Our melodies reflect the present day treatmer.t essential in all commcrcialJy successful songs. Our eXjJerience in the music business and our contacts here in the music capital of the nation, Xe\\ York, when' e the largest and most importan: n Jsic publishers and record companies are located, gives you a decided advantage in promoting your finished product. '" * you may be sure that your words wil be set to music by the top craftsmen in the field.

"' '" '" At the head of our staff of professional musicians and composers is our Complaint 71 F.

Director and Chief composer, Larry Allen * * * He composed a score for a very successful musical comedy show. He has been in the music business both as composer, songwriter and orchestra leader for more than 25 years. His long association with songs and songwriters puts him in an excellent position to be of service to you.

Q: If I write only words, how can I get good music for my song? A: Crown Music Company is equipped to give you the highest type of professional music available anywhere. If your words have a good idea, \ve wi1 polish them up, revise them \\'here needed, compose a beautiful melody and give you a completed professional song.

Q: 'When I send my song poems to Crown :Music Company, will I get an honest opinion as to whether they are worthy of musical setting? A: Yes. We reject all poems we cor:sider not suitable and return them to the Author with suggestions for improvement. Q: It is possible for a new writer to succeed in songwriting? A: Yes. Many song hits are by new writers \vhos': fi.rst attempt war a success.

Q: Can (a songwritingl hobby become profitable? A: Every successful song\vriter began by \writing songs as a hobby. When their first song became a hit. their hobby turned into a profitable profession. Many have earned $50 000 from one song.

PAR. 5. Through the use of the above quoted statements and representations, and others of similar import and meaning but not expressly set out herein, respondent represents and has represented, directly or by implication, that: 1. Crown fusic Company needs and is making a bona fide request fol' poems \which can suitably be combined with music of its own composition to produce songs, and that authors \vill be paid for acceptable poems.

2. Clown Tvlusic Company s act of accepting a poem evinces a critical evaluation and bona fide determination by it that the poem can be combined 'i"with a melody of its own composition to produce a commercially attractive song.

3. Crown Music Company is collaborating with authors in combining its music 'iviththeir poems in a commercial venture for their mutual profit.

4. In addition to setting the submitted poems to music Crown Music Company will, for the fee of S39 , promote and publicize the resultant song.

5. Respondent has personal contacts with music publishers, recording companies and others in the city of K ew York through 'i"lhom he can promote songs containing the submitted poems. 6. Crown Music Company has produced and promoted many commercially successful songs with poems submitted by the pub- CROWN MUSIC CO. 663 658 Complaint lie; and that songs produced in this way can produce substantial earnings for authors of poems.

7. Respondent composed a score for a successful professional musical comedy show, that he is and has been in the music business as song\vriter and orchestra leader for more than twenty years, and that his long association with the songwriting field puts him in position to successfully promote songs. PAR. 6. In truth and in fact:

1. Crown :YIusic Company is not in need of poems to produce songs nor is the advertised rcquest for poems bona fide. Respondent' s contact advertisements are solely for the purpose of obtaining leads to purchasers of his services, and authors whose poems are accepted by respondent do not receive any payment. 2. Crown Music Company, in accepting a poem, has not made a critical evaluation and determination that the poem can be combined \vit11 its own melody to produce a commercially attractive song. Rather, respondent indicates acceptance in order to induce the author of ihe poen1 to purchase his services. 3. Crown IV(usic Comp;omy is not col1abol'ating with authors combining its music with their poems in a commercial venture for their mutual profit. Jnstead, respondent combines his music with such poems for the purpose of exploiting the sale of services to authors for his sole profit.

4. The initial contract with the author enumerates the specific services to be performed by respondent for the stated fee of $39 which does not include promotion of the finished song. However accompanying advertising material referring to promotion of the song fails to disclose that there will be additional substantial charges for this service, thus representing, by implication, that respondent will promote the song as part of his services under the initial contract.

5. Respondent does not have personal contact ,,,ith music publishers, recording companies or others in the city of New York which are used to promote songs. Respondent's songs are distributed to a mailing list of firms and individuals with whom he has no personal contact.

6. Crown jiusic Con1pany has not produced or promoted a commercially successful song with any of the poems submitted to it by the public and songs produced in this way have not produced substantial earnings for authors of poems. 7. Larry Allen has not composed a score for a professional musical comedy. He has not been connected with an orchestra since the end of the 1930's and he has no associations in the song- Decision and Order 71 F. writing field which help in the promotion of songs made with poems submitted by the public.

Therefore, the statements and representations as set forth in Paragraphs Four and Five hereof were and are, false, misleading and deceptive.

PAR. 7. In the course and conduct of his business, at all times mentioned herein, respondent has been in substantial competition in commerce, with corporations, firms, and individuals in the sale of songwriting services.

PAR. 8. The use by respondent of the aforesaid false, misleading and deceptive statements, representations, and practices has had, and now has, the tendency and capacity to mislead members of the purchasing public; into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said statements and representations were and are true and into the purchase of respondent' s services by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief.

PAR. 9. The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondent, as herein alleged, were and are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and respondent's competitors and constituted, and now constitute, unfair methods of competition in commerce and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, in violation of Section 5 of 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 respondent having been served with notice of said determination and with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together vlith a proposed form of order; and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having therean ad- after executed an agreement containing a consent order, mission by respondent of aJl 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 been violated as set forth in such complaint, and \vaivers 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 agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

, is 1. Respondent Allan Lawrence, also known as Larry Allen CROWN MUSIC CO. 065 658 Decision and Order an individual doing business as Crown Music Company, with his offce and principal place of business located at 49 West 32nd Street, ;\ew York, New York, 10001.

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

ORDER It is o1'dered That Allan Lawrence, also known as Larry Allen an individual doing business as Crown l'vlusic Company, 01' under any other name or names, and respondent' s agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the advertising, offering for sale, sale or distribution of songwriting or song promotional services or any article of merchandise in connection therewith in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade COll1mission Act do forthwith cease and desist from representing, directly or by implication:

1. That respondent needs or wants poems to be used by him in producing his songs \vhen such poems are neither needed nor wanted for such purpose; or using any advertising, sales plan or procedure involving the use of false, deceptive or misleading statements or representations to obtain leads or prospects for the sale of respondent's services or products; or failing to disclose in any advertisement soliciting the submission of poems that the purpose or such advertising is to obtain leads for the sale of respondent' songwriting and song promotional services. 2. That respondent will pay for poems which are submitted and found acceptable.

3. That in accepting a poem submitted to him pursuant to his contact advertisements respondent makes critical evaluation of it and a bona fide determination that it can be suitably combined with a melody of his own composition to produce a commercially attractive song; 01' misrepresenting in any manner, the professional n1merit or commercial potentialities of songs produced with poems submiUed to him by the public.

4. That respondent is collaborating with authors of poems in producing songs as a commercial venture for their mutual profit.

5. That under the initial contract pursuant to which a song is produced by combining respondent s music with the Syllabus 11 F. submitted poem, respondent will pl'mote and publicize the resultant song \vithout additional payment for such services; 01' misrepresenting, in any manner, the amount, degree or extent of the promotional 01' publicizing efforts 01' other services furnished or provided under any express 01' implied contract or agreement.

6. That respondent has personal contacts with music publishers, recording companies or others engaged or connected with the music business in the city of New York or elsewhere, assuring the successful commercial1 promotion of subst;:mtial earnings from songs composed \with poems submitted by the public; or misrepresenting in any manner respondent' s effectiveness in promoting songs commercially 01' the amount of earnings from songs promoted by respondent. 7. That respondent has produced OJ promoted any commercially successful songs composed with poems submitted to him by the public.

8. That respondent composed a score for a successful professiol1cJ musical comedy show; or that he is currently, or has been in the recent past, actively connected with an orchestra; or that he has associations because of his musical and songwriting career whicll help him to successfully promote the songs composed with poems submitted by the public; or misrepresenting in any manner respondent' accomplishments, abilities, activities, background, associations or connections in the field of music. It is tnTther ordered That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon him of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing settng forth in detail the manner and form in which he has complied with this order. 1:- THE MATTER OF RA YMOND LENOBEL TRADING AS RAY LENOBEL CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIOOJ AND THE Fer PRODeCTS LABELING ACTS D()(:ket C-1196, CUliplaint, Api' 96i- Decision, Apr. JOCi C(jnsent order requiring a Chicago Ill. jndcpendent commission salesman to cease misbranding and falsely advertising his fur products. RAY LENOBEL 667 666 Complaint 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 Raymond Lenobel, an individual trading as Ray Lenobel, sometimes hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeiing 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 Raymond Lenobel, an individual trading as Ray Lenobel, is an independent commission salesman of fur products with his offce and principal place of business located at 162 North State Street, Chicago, Ilinois. PAR. 2. Respondent is now and for some time last past has been engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in the sale, advertising, flnd offering for sale in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution b1 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 Ivhleh 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 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 the said fur products.

2. To disclose that the fur contained in the said fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artifkially colm' , when such was the fact.

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 promulated thereunder in thc following respects: 1. The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set (g) 668 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIO:- DECISIONS Complaint 71 F.

forth on labels in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

2. 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 of said Rules and Regulations.

3. Information required on labels under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder ,vas not set fort.h in the required sequence in violation of Rule 30 of the said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 5. Certain of the fur products were misbranded in that they falsely and deceptively labeled, or otherwise falsely or deceptively identified as the labels affxed to the fur products contained a purported "Appraisal Price" which represented, directly or by implication, that the fur products had been appraised by a qualified and impartial appraiser, having no pecuniary or other interest in the fur products, and that the fur product had a value as represented. In truth and in fact the said fur products were not appraised by a qualified and impartial appraiser, having no pecuniary or other interest in the fur products and was in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAIL 6. Certain of the 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 said Act.

Among and included in the aforesaid false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of the respondent which appeared in issues of the Chicago 'fribune and of the Chicago Daily :'ews, newspapers published in the city of Chicago, State of Ilinois, and having a wide circulation in the State of Illinois and other States of the United States. Among such false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements which failed: 1. To ShOVi' the true animal name of the fur used in any such fur product.

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

PAR. 7. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specificially referred to herein respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that the said fur RAY LENOBEL 669 666 Complaint products were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: 1. The term "Broadtail Lamb" was not set forth in advertisements in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 8 (b) of the said Rules and Regulations.

2. The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth in advertisements in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 10 of the said Rules and Regulations. 3. The term "natural" was not used in advertisements 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.

PAR. 8. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that certain of said fur products were falsely 01' deceptively identified with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals thatpToduced the fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of 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 implying that the fur contained therein was entitled to the designation of "Broadtail Lamb" when in truth and in fact it was not entitled to such designation. PAR. 9. By means of the aforesaid advertisement and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products with respect to the name of the country of origin of imported furs contained in such fur products, 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 to imply that the country of origin of fur contained in such fur products was the United States, when the country of origin of such furs was, in fact, Argentina.

PAR. 10. By means of the aforesaid advertisements, and others of similar import not specifically referred to herein, the respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertisements represented that the said fur products came from One of ew York' s Largest Wholesale Furriers-Justine Furs, New York ew York" and "From The Vaults of One of The Largest Fine Fur Wholesalers, Justine Furs, New York, New Decision and Order 71 P. York." In truth and in fact only an infinitesimal number of the fur products offered for sale came from ,"orton Furs (successor in interest to Justine Furs), with the remaining' fur products being furnished from various other sources. The aforementioned representations were in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44 (g) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the aforesaid Act. PAR. 11. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import not specifically referred to herein, the respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertisements represented, contrary to truth and fact, that the sale of the fur products was "By Order of the Creditors " in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44 (g) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the aforesaid Act.

PAR. 12. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in that the labels affxed to the fur products contained a purported nAppraisal Price" which represented directly or by implication, that the fur products had been appraised by a qualified and impartial appraiser, having no pecuniary or other interest in the fur products, and that the fur products had values as represented. 1n truth and in fact the said fur products were not appraised by a qualified and impartial appraiser having no pecuniary or other interest in the fur products and was in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, and Rule 44 (c) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

PAR. 13. 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 methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices 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 respo!ident named in the caption hereof, and the respondent having been furnished thereaftey 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, \vould charge respondent with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act; and RAY LENOBEL 671 666 Dccision and Order The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondent of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of compl2int, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the ,' espondcnt that the law has been violated as alleged in such complaini, and \vaivers and provisions as required by the Comnlission s rules; and The Commission, having reason to believe that the respondent has 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 foJ1o\ving order: 1. Respondent is an independent commission salesman of fuy products, with his offce and principal place of business located at 162 North State Street, Chicago, Ilinois. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered That respondent Raymond Lenobel, an individual trading as Ray Lenobel, or under any other name, and respondent' s representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising OY 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. Misbranding fur products by:

1. Failing to affx labels to fur products showing in words and 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. 2. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtailprocessed Lamb" on labels in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the term Dyed-Lamb, Decision and Order 71 F. 3. 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 bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

4. Failing to set forth on labels the information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in the sequence required by Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

, or 5. Using the term "Appraisal Price" on labels terms of similar import or meaning, to represent the value of fur products being offered for sale, unless such evaluations and prices are based upon authentic and bona fide appraisals of value by a qualified appraiser having no pecuniary or other interest in the fur products.

B. 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 olTering for sale of fur products, 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. Falsely or deceptively identifies any such fur product as to the name or designation of the anin1al or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product. 3. Falsely or deceptively identifies any fur products as to the country of origin of fur contained in such fur products.

4. Fails to set forth the term "Broadtail Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to llse that term instead of the word "Lamb.

5. Fails 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.

6. 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 , . , j,%? DYI\AMIC IMPORTS , I , ET AL. 673 666 Complaint and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe such fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored. 7. lisrepresents, directly or by implication, that any such fur products came from a particular source for the purpose of the sale.

8. CYlisl'represents, directly or by implication, that any such fur products were secured by respondent from a source that is OJ' was in financial or other distress. 9. Misrepresents, directly or by implication, that the fur products being offered for sale have been appraised as to value by authentic and bona fide appraisals made by a qualified appraiser having no pecuniary or other interest in the fur product.

It 'is further o"idered That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) dccys after service upon him of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he has complied with this order. 'Ill" MATTER OF DYNAMIC I;VJPORTS II\C. ET AL.

CONSE:-T ORDER, ETC. , I REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATJO OF THE FEDERAL TRADE CO \HdISSION A_ D THE WOOL PRODL CTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1196' COli/plu/nt 1april17 Df'cisirJn, Api' il If)(j; Consent order re(luiring two New York City impOl'tel' s of women s \vool slacks to cease misoranding tlle fiber content of their mej'chandise, COMPLAI='T Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of J 989, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by saiel Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Dynamic Imports, Inc" a corporation, and Dynamic Fashions, Inc. , a corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Ads and the Hules and Regulations promulgated under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 , and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be ;(, ;(, /( COmlJlaint 71 F.

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

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Dynamic Imports, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and ctoing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. Its offce and principal place of business is located at 1370 Broadway, New York, New York. Said corporate respondent imports and sells, among other items \Vomen s slacks composed in whole or in part of wool. Respondent D:'llUlT1ic Fashions, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. Its oflce and principal place of business is located nt 1370 Broadway, New :talk, New York. Said carpaate respondent imports and sells, among other items, women slacks composed in whole or in part of wool. PAR. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 , respondents have introduced into commerce, sold, transported, distributed, delivered for shipment shipped and offered for sale in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in said Act, wool products as "wool product" is defmed therein.

PAR. 3. Certain of said wool products were misbranded by the respondents within the intent and meaning' of Section 4 (a) (1) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations pro111ulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified with respect to the character and amount of the constituent iibers contained therein.

Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto were women s slacks stamped, tagg" , labeled, 01' otherwise identified by respondents as " Finest Reprocessed \Vool 92 ylon 8 Finest Reprocessed \Vool 75 ; Stretch Nylon /r, 90()c Reprocessed \Vool, 10% Kylon, " and " 95S' ( Reprocessed lool Nylon " \vhereas in truth and in fact, said products contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than represented.

PAR. 4. Certain of said Wl)O! products were further misbranded by respondents ill that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled or other'iise identified as required under the provisions oj' Secbon 4 (a) (2) of the \Vaal Products Labeling' Act of 1939 and in the manner and form as prescribed by the H.ules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

Ailing such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto ,vas a wool product liz. women s slacks, ,with a label on OJ' affxed DYNAMIC IMPORTS, INC. , ET AL. 675 673 Decision and Order thereto which failed to disclose the percentage of the total fiber weight of the said wool product, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding 5 % of the total fiber weight, of (1) wool; (2) reprocessed wool; (3) reused wool; (4) each fiber other than wool present in the wool product when said percentage by weight of such fiber was 5 ;' , or more; and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers.

PAR. 5. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth above were, and are in violation of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated theTeunder, and constituted, and now constitute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce, wiihin the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION AI\D ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain nets 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 Tl ade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939; 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 said Acts, and having determined that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, hereby issues its compbint, accepts said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondents Dynamic Imports, Inc. , and Dynamic Fashions, Inc. , are corporabons organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with their offce and principal place of business located at 1370 Broad- \"lay, 1";ew York, Xew YUl'k.

Syllabus 71 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 ordered That respondents Dynamic Imports, Inc. , a corporation, and its offcers, and Dynamic Fashions, Inc., and its offcers, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the offering for sale, sale transportation, distribution, or delivery for shipment or shipment in commerce, of women s slacks composed in \whole or in part of wool, or other wooI products, as "commerce" and "wool product" are defined in the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding wool products by:

A. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling, or otherwise identifying such products as to the character or amount of constituent fibers included therein. B. Failing to securely affx to, or place on, each such product a stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification showing in a clear and conspicuous manner each element information requirect to be disclosect by Section 4 (a) (2) the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

It is tUTther m'dated That the respondents hereil1 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 Oldel' I:\ THE MATTER OF PICK GALLERIES , Ii\C., ET AL.

CONSE:\T ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATIOl' OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COM lISStON AND THE FUR PRODL'CTS LABELING ACTS Docket. G- ll 9i Compla:int, AJn. 19C Dfci8ioii, Apr. 1.9C7 Consent order requi)' ing a \Vinnetka, Ill., retailer nnd auctioneer of various commodities, including fur lJJoducts, to cease Jalsely invoicing and advertising his fur products.

PICK GALLERIES, INC. ET AL. 677 676 Complaint 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 Pick Galleries, Inc., a corporation, and Harold R. Pick, 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 pro. mulgated 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 Pick Galleries Inc. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Ilinois. Respondent Harold R. Pick is the president of said corporate respondent. He formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies of said corporation. The respondents are engaged in the retail sale and auctioneering of various commodities, including fur products, with their offce and principal place of business located at 886 Linden Avenue, Winnetka, Ilinois.

PAR. 2. Respondents are now, and for some time last past have been, engaged in the 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 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/' Hfur " and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 3. Certain of the 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 the fur products.

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

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were falsely and decep- Complaint 71 F. T.

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 that 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.

PAR. 5. Certain of the 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 said Act.

Among and included in the aforesaid false'and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of the respondents which appeared in issues of the Chicago Tribune and of the Chicago Daily ::ews, newspapers published in the city of Chicago, State of Ilinois, and having a wide circulation in the State of Ilinois 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 such fur products.

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

PAR. 6. 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 the said fur products were r.ot advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: 1. The term "Broadtail Lamb" was not set forth in advertisements in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 8 (b) of said Rules and Regulations.

2. The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set , in viola-forth in advertisements in the manner required by law tion of Rule 10 of the said Rules and Regulations. 3. The term " natural" was not used in advertisements 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.

PAR. 7. 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 PICK GALLERIES , INC. ET AL. 679 676 Complaint 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 implying that the fur contained therein was entitled to the designation of "Broadtail Lamb" when in truth and in fact it was not entitled to such designation. PAR. 8. By means of the aforesaid advertisement and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products with respect to the name of the country of origin of imported furs contained in such fur products, 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 to imply that the country of origin of fur contained in such fur products was the Lnited States, when the country of origin of such furs was, in fact, Argentina.

PAR. 9. By means of the aforesaid advertisements, and others of similar import not specifically referred to herein, the respondents faisely and deceptively advertised fur products in that the said advertisements represented that the said fur products came from " One of New York' s Largest Vlholesa1e Furriers-Justine Furs, Kew York, New York" and "From the Vaults of One of the Largest Fine Fur Wholesalers, Justine Furs, K ew York, X ew York." In truth and in fact only an infinitesimal number of the fur products offered for sale came from K(JI,ton Furs (successor in interest to Justine Furs), with the remaining fur products being furnished from various other sources. The aforementioned representations were in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44 (g) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the aforesaid Act.

PAR. 10. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import not specifically referred to herein, the respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that the said advertisements represented, contrary to truth and fact, that the sale of the fur products was "By Order of the Creditors " in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44 (g) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the aforesaid Act.

Decision and Order 71 F. 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 methods of competition, and unfair and deceptive acts or practices, 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, having 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 agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the follo\ving order: 1. Respondent Pick Galleries, 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 886 Linden Avenue, Winnetka, Illinois. Respondent Harold R. Pick 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 Pick Galleries, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and Harold R. Pick, individually and as an PICK GALLERIES , INC. ET AL. 681 676 Decision and Order offcer of said corporation, 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 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 all the information required to be disclosed in each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. 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.

B. Falsely or deceptively advertising' fur products through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcen1ent or notice which is intended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale, or offering for sale of fur products, 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. Falsely or deceptively identifies any such fur product as to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product. 8. Falsely or deceptively identifies any such fur product as to the country of origin of the fur contained in such fur product.

4. Fails to set forth the term "Broadtail Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the "word "Lamb.

5. Fails 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.

Complaint 71 F.

6. 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 such fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed, or otherwise artificially colored. 7. Misrepresents, directly or by implication, that any such fur products came from a particular source for the purpose of the sale.

S. Misrepresents, directly or by implication, that any such fur products were secured by respondents from a source that is or \vas in financial or other distress. It ":s tUTtheT 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. II\ THE MATTER OF JACK R. GL:TTER TRADING AS Dl.CHESS MINK CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE Fer PROD\;CTS LABELING ACTS Doclat C-llfr. C01npl(Ll:nt, AP1' lde/-Decision, A1Jr. , 1.967 Consent order requiring a Beverly Hills, Calif., manufacturer and wholesaler of fur products to cease misbranding and falsely advertising his fur products.

COMPLAI:-T 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 Jack R. Gutter, an individual trading as Duchess Mink, sometimes 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 .Jack R. Gutter is an individual trading as Duchess Mink. Respondent is a manufacturer and DUCHESS MINK 683 682 Complaint wholesaler of fur products with his offce and principal place of business located at 344 North Rodeo Drive, Beverly Hils, California.

PAR. 2. Respondent is now, and for some time last past has been, 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 C01nn1erce, of fur products; and has 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 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 the said fur products.

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

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labcled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: 1. The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth on labels in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

2. 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 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

3. Information required on labels 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 the said Rules and Reg-ulations. PAR. 5. Certain of the fur products were misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled, or otherwise falsely or deceptively identified as the labels affxed to the fur products contained a purported "Appraisal Price " which represented, directly Complaint 71 F.

or by implication, that the fur products had been appraised by a qualified and impartial appraiser, having no pecuniary or other interest in the fur products, and that the fur products had a value as represented. In truth and in fact the said fur products were not appraised by a qualified and impartial appraiser, having no pecuniary or other interest in the fur products and was in violation of Section 4 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 6. Certain of the 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 said Act.

Among and included in the aforesaid false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of the respondent which appeared in issues of the Chicago Tribune, and of the Chicago Daily 1\ ews, newspapers published in the city of Chicago, State of Illinois, and having a wide circulation in the State of Ilinois 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 the country of origin of any imported furs contained in such fur products.

PAH. 7. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein respondent 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 Ivith the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the follo'\ving respects: 1. The term "Broadtail Lamb" was not set forth in advertisements in the manner required by 1m\', in violation of Rule 8 (b) of the said Rules and Regulations 2. The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth in advertisements in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 10 of the said Rules and Regulations. 3. The term "natural" 'was not used in advertisements to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed, or otherwise artificia1Jy colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 8. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of DUCHESS MINK 685 682 Complaint similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondent 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 implying that the fur contained therein was entitled to the designation of "Broadtail Lamb" when in truth and in fact it was not entitled to such designation. PAR. 9. By means of the aforesaid advertisement and others of similar import and meaning not spedfically referred to herein respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products with respect to the name of the country of origin of imported furs contained in such fur products, 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 to imply that the country of origin of fur contained in such fur products was the l:united States, when the country of origin of such furs was, in fact, Argentina.

PAR. 10. By means of the aforesaid advertisements, and others of similar import not specifically referred to herein, the respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertisements represented that the said fur product came from One of New Yark' s Largest \Vholesale Furriers-Justine Furs New York, New York" and "From the Vaults of One of The Largest Fine Fur Wholesalers, Justine Furs, Ne\v York, New York." In truth and in fact only an infinitesimal number of the fur products offered for sale came from Norton Furs, successor in interest to Justine Furs. The remaining fur products were furnished by various other sources, including that of the respondent. The aforesaid representations were in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44 (g) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the aforesaid Act. PAR. 11. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import not specifically referred to herein, the respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertisements represented, contrary to truth and fact, that the sale of the fur products was "By Order of the Creditors " in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Decision and Order 71 F. Rule 44 (g) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the aforesaid Act.

PAR. 12. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in that the labels affxed to the fur products contained a purported "Appraisal Price" which represented, directly or by implication, that the fur products had been appraised by a qualified and impartial appraiser, having no pecuniary or other interest in the fur products, and that the fur products had a value as represented. In truth and in fact the said fur products were not appraised by a qualified and impartial appraiser having no pecuniary or other interest in the fur products and was in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44 (c) of the Rules and Regulations jJromulgated thereunder.

PAR. 13. 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 methods of competition, and unfair and deceptive acts or practices, 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 respondent named in the caption hereof, and the respondent 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 respondent with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act; and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondent 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 respondent 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 respondent has violated the said Acts, and having determined that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, hereby issues it.s complaint, accepts said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order; DUCHESS MINK 687 682 Order 1. Respondent Jack R. Gutter is an individual trading as Duchess Mink, with his offce and principal place of business located at 344 North Rodeo Drive, Beverly Hils, California. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered That respondent Jack R. Gutter, an individual trading as Duchess Mink, or under any other trade name, and respondent' s 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, advert.ising 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 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. 2. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtailprocessed Lamb" on labels in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the term Dyed Lamb, 3. Failing to set. forth the term "natural" as part of the informat.ion 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 bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

4. Failing to set forth on labels the information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in the sequence required by Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

5. Using the term "Appraisal Price" on labels, or Order 71 F.

terms of similar import or meaning, to represent the value of fur products being offered for sale, unless such evaluations and prices are based upon authentic and bona fide appraisals of value by a qualified appraiser having no pecuniary or other interest in the fur products.

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

1. Fails to set forth in words and figures plainly legible a1l 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 fur product as to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product. 3. Falsely or deceptively identifies any fur products as to the country of origin of furs contained in such fur prod uct.

4. Fails to set forth the term "Broadtail Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the word "Lamb.

5. Fails to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtailprocessed Lamb" in thc manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words "Dyed Lamb.

6. Fails to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information to be disclosed in advertisements under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe such fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

7. Misrepresents directly or by implication, that any such fur products came from a particular source for the purpose of the sale.

8. Misrepresents directly or by implication, that any such fur products were secured by respondent from a source that is or was in financial or other distress. 9. Misrepresents directly or by implication, that the fur products being offered for sale have been appraised as to value by authentic and bona fide appraisals made CAPITAL Elry QUILTING, I , ET AI. 689 682 Complaint by a qualified appraiser having no peCUTIwry or other interest in the fur products.

It is tU1'that ordered That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon him of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he has complied with this order.