Adrian Thal, Inc.

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

IN THE :vATTER OF ADRIAN THAT, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1215. Complaint, June 1967-Decision, June, 1967 Consent order requiring a New York City furrier to cease misbranding and deceptively advertising its fur products. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe. that Adrian That, Inc. , a corporation and Adrian That and Thelma That, individually and as offcers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Adrian That, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the State of New York.

Respondents Adrian That and Thelma That are offcers of said corporation. They formulate, direct and control the policies, acts and practices of said corporation.

Respondents are retailers of fur producis with their offce and principal place of business located at 345 Seventh Avenue, city of New York, State of New York.

PAR. 2. Respondents are now, and for some time last1Jast have been, engaged in the introduciion 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 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 Producis Labeling Act and in the manner and Complaint 71 F.

form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto were fur products with labels which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in any such fur product.

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

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulatio,"s promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

(a) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated , in viola-thereunder was set forth on labels in abbreviated form tion of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations. (b) The term "natural" was not used on labels to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed1 , tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Prodducts 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 Regulations. PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that certain advertisements intended to aiel, promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and advertising for sale,of such fur products were not in accordance \with the provisions of Section 5 of the said Act.

Among and included in the aforesaid arlvcrtisen1ents, but not limited thereto were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the Miami Herald, a newspaper published in wiele circulationthe city of Miami, State of Floriela and having a in Florida and in other States of the l:united States. Among such false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements which failed to show that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

ADRIAN TEAL, IKC. , E'r AL. 819 817 Decision and Order PAR. 6. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and other advertisements of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44 (a) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder by representing, directly or by implication through statements appearing in newspapers such as "Formerly $1250-:\ow $625" that the prices of such fur products were reduced from the actual bona fide prices at which the respondents offered the products to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business and the amount of such purported reductions constituted savings to purchasers of respondents' fur products. In truth and in fact the alleged former prices were fictitious in that the said fur products were not reduced in price as represented and savings were not afforded purchasers of respondents ' fur products as represented.

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 violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that the said fur products were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder inasmuch as the term "natural" was not used to describe fur products which ,were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, 01' otherwise artificially colored in violation of Rule 19 (g) of the said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 8. The aforesaid ads and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Hules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Con1mission 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, wendel 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 ad- Order 71 F.

mission 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 Adrian That, Inc. , is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 345 Seventh Avenue, in the city of New York State of New York.

Respondents Adrian That and Thelma That are offcers of said corporation and their address is the same as that of said corporation.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subj ect matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest. ORDER It is ordered That respondents Adrian That, Inc. , a corporation, and its offcers, and Adrian That and Thelma That, 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 into commerce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution jn commerce, of any fur product; 01' in connection whh 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. :Vlisbranding any fur product by:

1. Failing to affx a label to such fur product showing in words and figures plainly legible all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. ADRIAN THAT, INC. , ET AL. 821 817 Order 2. Setting forth information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeiing Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form on a label affxed to such fur product.

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

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

B. Falsely or deceptively advertising any fur product through the use of any advertisement, representation, pubiic announcement or notice which is intended to aid, pr01110te or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale of any fur product, and which;

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

2. Uses the word "Formerly " or words of similar import, to refer to any amount .which is in excess of the price at which such merchandise has been sold or offered for sale in good faith by the respondents in the recent regular course of iheh' business, or otherwise misrepresents the prices at which such merchandise has been sold or offered for sale by respondents.

3. Misrepresents in any manner the savings available to purchasers of respondents' fur products. 4. Fails to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed in advertisements under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

It is furthe)" 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. Complaint 71 F.