Guilford Industries, Inc.

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

IN Tile l\IA TIER OF GUILFORD INDUSTRIES, INC.

CONSENT ORiDZR : ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED YIuLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE CO)Il\IISSION AND THE WOOL PROD-ccts LABELING ACTS Docket 0-1318. Coli/plaint, April 1968-Deci8ioil, April 3, 19GB Consent order requiring a Guilford, :\Iaine, fabric mill to cease misrepresenting the fiber content of its \yool products and furnishing false guaranties. CO)IPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the "\V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by saiel Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Guilford Industries, Inc. , a corporation hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the "\Vool Products 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 com plaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. R,respondent Guilford Industries, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of :Blaine, with its office and principal place of business at Guilford, l\Iaine.

Respondent Guilford Industries, Inc., is a mill engaged primarily in the manufacture of 'woolen and \\-oolen blend fabrics which are sold principally to manufacturers of women s wear. m. 2. Respondent, now and for some time last past, has manufactured for introduction into commerce, introduced into commerce sold, transported, distributed, c1eli'Tered for shipment, shipped, and offered for sale in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in said "\tV 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939, wool products as "wool product' is defined therein.

PAR. 3. Ce.rta:in of said wool products were misbranded by respondent within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a) (1) of the "\V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the 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. 566 FEDERAL TRADE CO1:IMISSION DECISIONS IComplaint 73 F.

Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto were wool products, namely fabrics, labeled as "100% wool " when in truth and in fact, said products contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers other than as represented. PAR. 4. Certain of said wool products were further misbranded by respondent in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified as required under' the provisions of Section 4 ( a) (2) of the ,Yool 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 woolen fabrics with labels on or affixed thereto, which failed to disclose the percentage of the total fiber weight of the said wool product, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding five per centum of the total fiber weight, of (1) wool fibers; (2) reprocessed wool; (3) reused wool; (4) each fiber other than wool, when saiel percentage by weight of such fiber was five per centum or more; and (5) the aggregate of all other fibers.

PAR. 5. The respondent furnished false guaranties that certain of its said wool products were not misbranded when respondent in furnishing such guaranties had reason to believe that the wool products so falsely guaranteed might be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in commerce, in violation of Section 9 (b) of the ,Y 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939.

PAR. 6. The acts and practices of respondent as set forth above were and are, in violation of the ,Yool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and of the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted and now constitute, unfair methods of competition in commerce and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in COlmnerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. PAR. 7. Respondent is now, and for some time last past, has been engaged in the offering for sale, sale, and distribution of certain products, namely fabrics. In the course and conduct of its business as aforesaid, respondent now causes and for some time last past has caused its said products, when sold, to be shipped from its place of business in the State of :Maine, to purchasers located in various other States of the United States, and maintains and at all times mentioned herein has maintained, a substantial course of trade in said products in commerce as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

GUILFORD INDUSTRIES) INC. 567 565 Decision and Order PAR. 8. Respondent in the c.course and conduct of its business has made statements on invoices to its customers, misrepresenting the fiber content of certain of its products.

Among such misrepresentations, but not limited, were statements setting forth the fiber content thereof as " 100% wool " thereby represer:.ting the products to be composed entirely of wool, whereas, in truth and in fact, the product was not 100% wool but contained substantially different fibers than represented.

PAR. 9. The acts and practices as set forth in Paragraph Eight have the tendency and capacity to mislead and deceive the purchasers of said products as to the true content thereof. PAR. 10. The acts and practices of the responde,nt set forth in Paragraph Eight were, and are, all to the prejudice and injury or the public and respondent' s competitors and constituted and now constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices, in commerce, within the intent and meaning of 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 ,Vool Products Labeling Act of 1939; 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 settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent that the law has been violated as alleged in such complaint and waivers and other provisions as required by the Commission Rules; and The Commission having thereafter considered the matter and having determined that it had reason to believe that the respondent has violated the said Acts, and that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, a,nd having thereupon accepted the executed consent agreement and placed such agreement on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in S 2.34 (b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby 568 FEDERAL TRADE COMl\HSSION DECISIONS Decision and Order 73 F, issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Guilford Industries, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of ~iaine, with its office and principal place or business at Guilford, ~iaine.

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 OJ'dered That respondent Guilford Industries, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other c12Yice, in connection with the n'lanufacture for introduction into commerce, the introduction into commerce, 01' the offering ror sale. sale, transportation, distribution, deli,ery for shipment or shipment. in commerce, of ";-001 products, as commerce" and "wool products" are defined in the ",Vool Products La.beling Act of 1939, do forth ,with cease and desist from misbranding wool products by:

1. Falsely and deceptively stamping, tagging. labeling, or otherwise identifying such products as to the character or amount or the constituent fibers contained therein.

2. Failing to securely affix 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 of information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (a) (2) of the \Vool Products Labeling Act of 1939.

It is further' ordered That respondent Guilford Industries, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, representatives, agents and employees directly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from furnishing raise guaranties that certain of their wool products are not misbranded when respondent in rurnishing such guaranties has reason to believe that the wool products so ralsely guar::mteed might be introduced, sold, transported or distributed in commerce, in violation or Section 9 (b) of the. ,Yool Products Labeling Act or 1939.

It iB fu1'their' orde?' ecl That respondent Guilford Industries, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, representative.s, agents and e.l1lployee.s directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of ra brics or other products in eomme.rce, as "commerce" is defined in the. Federal Trade Coll11llis- ( , BE~ RAY SPORTS\VEAR. I:\C.. ET AL. 569 565 Complaint sion Act, do fortlnvith cease and desist from misrepresenting the character or amount of constituent fibers c.ontailled in such products on in,-oices or shipping memoranda applicable thereto, or in any other manner.

It -is luJ'theJ' onle'i'ed That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days aiter service upon it of this order, file with the Con1111is- Rion fl. report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form ill ,which it has complied IVith this order. Ix THE AI.\. TTER OF BEX R_~ Y SPORTS\YE~\.R, IXC., ET .

COX8E~T Order. ETC.. IX RE(~.\RD TO THE ALLEGED YIOL_-\.TION OF THE FED- ER.,\L Tn. \DE ccnDIISSIOX THE WOOL PROIYGCTS LABELING AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODLiCTS IDEXTIFICA TION _-\.CTS Doc7,:ct 1319. Complaint, Api'. S , 196B-Decision, Api'. 1%8 COIJ8E'llt order requiring a :New York City manufacturer of sporti';wenr to cease misbranding its wool and textile fiber products. CO3IPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions or the Federal Trade Commission Act the ,Yool Prccluets Labelil1fl' Act of 10:39 and the' Textile Fiber Proc1nets Identification Ad. and bv virtue of the a llthol'itv ve~ted in hy 8:1ic1 Acts. the Federal Trade Commission, hnTin,Q' reason to believe 0.tllat Ben Ray Sportswear, Inc.. a corporation, and Benjamin ~letrano cl11c1 Rav Robbins. individually and as ofilcel's of said eol'Doration, he1'e-illnfter referred to as respondents,..hate .l.yiolatecl the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations pr0111nlgatedl1nder the ,Yool Products Labeling ~lct of 1039 and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and it appearing to the Commission tlmt a proceeding by it in respect thereof \\onlcl be in the public interest, hen;by issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follo\\- PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Ben Ray Sports\\ear, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the b\\s of the State of K e,y Yark.

Incli,-idual respondents Benjamin jUetl'ano and Ray Robbins are officers or saiel corporation. They formulate, direct and control the acts ~ p1'u.ctices and policies of the corporate respondent including the act;:; 1Lllcl practices hereinafter referred to. 418-340-72-- :)7 FEDERAL TRADE CO).DIISSIOX DECISIOl';S Complaint 73 F. T.

Respondents are manufacturers of large size skirts and sportswear both ,yool and textile, with their office and principal place of business located at 224 ,Vest 35th Street, New York, New York. PAR. 2. Respondents, now and for some time last past, have manufactured ror introduction into commerce. introduced into commerce. sold, transported, distributed, delivereel for shipment, shipped, and oft' ered for sale, in commerce, as "commerce" is defilled in said "y ool Products Labeling Act of 1939, wool products as " wool product" is defined therein.

PAll. 3. Certain of sa,ic1 wool products were misbranded by the respondents within the intent and meaning or Section 4 (a) (1) of the '\Vool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively stam peel, 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, was a skirt stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified as containing 100 percent 'wool 'whereas in truth and in fact, such skirt contained substantially different fibers and amounts of fibers than represented. PAR. 4. Certain of said wool products "ere further misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled, or other- \\ise identified as required under the provisions of Section 4: (a) (:2) of the ,Vool Products Labeling Act of 1939 and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations prOll1ulgated under saidAct.Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto were wool products, namely skirts, with labels on or affixed thereto which failed to disclose the percentage of the total fiber weight of the said wool products, exclusive of ornamentation not exceeding five per wool; (2) reprocessed wool;centum of said total fiber weight, of (1) (3) reused "Wool; (4) each fiber other than "Wool when said percentage by weight of such fiber was five per centum or 1110re; 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 \Vool Products Labeling ...lc.t 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 Coll1Inissioll Act. PAR. O. Respondents are no\\~ and for some. time last past hftve been engaged in the introduction, c1eli;-ery for introduction, manufacture , in COlllil1erce for introduction, sale, advertising, and offering for sa, BEN RAY SPORTS\YEAR ; IKC. , ET AL. 571 569 Decision a lld Order and in the transportation or cau:;;ing to 1e transported ill commerce and in the importation into the United Sbtes, of textile fiber products and have sold, ofIerecl for selle, ac1n~Ttisec1 , c1eliyered, transported and caused to be transported, textile fiber products, ,which have been uc1vertised or offered for sale in commerce.; and have sold, offered for sale' advertised, delivered, tr:111sported and cn n:::ed to be transporteel after shipment in commerce, textile fiber proctncts, either in their original state 01' contained in other textile fiber products; as the terms ;;commerce" and "textile fiber product are defined il;. the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

PAR. 7. Certain of saiel textile fiber products ",ere misbranc12d by respondents in that they 'were not ~:i"all1pecl, tag"gecl, bbe1ed, or otherwise identified as required under' the pn)\- lsions of Se,c.tioll ~1 (b) or the Textile Fiber Products Identification ~c'1-ct, and in the rnanner and fornl as prescribed by the Rules and Rcgnlatiolls promulgated under said Act.

Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not. limited thereto, was a textile fiber product with n label which Ltilecl: 1. To disclose the true generic Emnc of the fiber:c' s present; flnct 2. To disclose the percentages or 811('11 1'11.wl'::'.by \yeig:ht. PAR. 8. The rects and practices of l'e8pollc1ent;3 ~ as set forth above -n:ere, and are, in violation or the Textile Fibei. Products Identification Act and the Rules Hncl Regulations promnlgGtec1 thereunder, and constituted, and now constitute unfair and cleceptiye acts and practices, in eol11merce, and unfair methods of competition in c.commerce under the Feder:11 Trade Commission ~c\.ct. DECISIO~ --\.~D ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having initiated nE in\-estign.tion of certain acts and practices of the respondents named in the caption hereof, and the respondents having been furnished thereafter with ft 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. the ",V 001 Products Labeling Act or 1939 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 racts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint~ a statement that the sig11ing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute all admission by ( 572 ;FEDERAL TRADE COl\IMISSION DECISIONS Decision and Order 73 F. T. respondents that the la ,r has been violated as alleged in sllch complaint, and waivers and other provisions as required by the Commission s Rules; and The Commission ha vi ng thereaft er considered the ma ttel' and 11 a vini! 'determined that it had reason to believe that, the respondents hnv ioJnted the said Acts, and tlwt complaint should issue stating' its charges in that respect, and having therenpon accepted the executed consent agreement and placed such agreement 011 the public reco1'd tor a period of thirty (30) days, now in further conformity ",ith the l)l'ocednre, prescribed in S :2.34(b) of its Rules, tile Commission hereby i:-:slles its complaint, makes the following inri~di('tional nndings. and enters the follo'iving order:

1. Respondent Ben Ray Sports'ivear, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by yirtne of the In ,,of the State of Ke,v York, ,with its office and principal place of busil1e~:s located at :2:2-:1: ,Yest :33th Stl'eeL X E"'- York, xC'", y or1\:, l1respondents Benjamin )Ietrano and Ra~- n0bb;1l~ ,He ofikers of said corporation and their;: address is the ~nnlE' as that of said corpm:ation.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jnrisc1iction of the subject lTmtter of this proceeding und of the responc1ellt:3, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

linnLH 1 t is o1Ylered That respondents Ben Ra:v Sports,year'. Inc. , a corporation, and its officers, and Benjamin ::Uetl'nno and R;) Robbins individually and as officers of said corpol.(~tic.n, nncl respondents representatives, agents and employees ~ clirectJy 01' tJJl' ollgh an~~ corporate or other cleyice, in connection with the E)2nufa('tm' for introduction into commerce, introduction into commt'l'C' , or offering for sale, sale, transportation, distribution, c1eli-n~I'Y for shipment or shipment, in commerce, of ,yool products, fts ': eoD1l11erce " and :' ool product" are defined in the ,7\7 ool Products Labeling' . Act of 1039 do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding wool products by: 1. Falsely and c1eceptivel:y stamping, tagging, labeling, or otherwise identifying such products a~ to the charader or amount of the constituent fibers contained therein. 2. Failing to securely affix to or pb. ce on, each such product a. stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification showing in a, clear and conspicuous mal1l1e, , each element of informati02l required to be c1iselosec1 by Section 4 (fl) (:2) of the ,Yool Products Lflbeling Act. of 1939.

, QUALITY 'THRIFT FURS , IKC. , ET AL. 573' 5G!J Complaint 1 t is fl.l.rthei' o/'(Ie)' That respondents Ben Ray Sport3~Year Iuc. it corporation, and its officers, ::md Benjamin ~Ietn1110 (1l1d Ray Robbins, individually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents representatives, agents and employees, directly 01' through all~- corporate or other device, in connectjon ,~-ith the intl'odudio, c1eliyery for introduction, manufacture for introduction, sale, advertising or offering for sale, in commerce~ 01' the transportation 01' causing to be transported in commerce, or the importation into the United States of any textile' fiber product; or in connection ,-..-it h the sa Ie, offering fer sale n c1 '- C'l'tisinQ' c1eliyerv.of, transporta tion 01' en usin~ to be tnmsported, of any textile fiber product ,which has been ach-ellis('c1 01' offered for sale in commerce; 01' in connection ,yii-h the sale, oiIering for sale, advertising, delin'ry, transportation, or cal1sinp: to be transported, after shipment in commerce, of nn~- textie e flber product ,whether in its original state or containec1 in othc'c' textile. filwr products as the terms "commerce" and "textile fiber product"' fue defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification .Act. do fcrth,with cease ,led desist from misbranding textile fiber products b~- failing to ::dlh Stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification to each such textile fibf'l' product showing in a clem', legible and conspicllons manner (\':d1 elerl"lcnt of information requirec1 to be (1is('lo~:2c1 b~- 8('cticon -J. (h) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. It ,is fu'i'tlie1' ordered. That the l'esnonc1ents berein shall. ,,- within sixty? (60) days after' sen- ice upon them of this 01'(1er, file ,,-"it 11 the .LCommission a report in writing' setting i~orth in clptail the m:nmer rmc rorm III 11('1 t. ley lave eompllec Y':ltn Lns order, Ix THE ).L\ TTEn , 'TR,\DIXG "\5 .HOPPER FURSQ'GALITY TI-IRIFT FlTRS, INC. ET AL.

cnXSEXT Order, ETC., IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FED- ER"\L TRADE CO:JBIISSIOX AND THE Fur PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-132(i. Coj/wlwint, April 196B-Decision, April 8, 1968 Consent order requiring a St. Louis, ::\10., retail furrier to cease misbranding and falsely invoicing its fur products.

CO::\IPLAIXT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade COlllillission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and by virtue of the authority , . , . . 574 FEDERAL TRi\DE CO:\DIISSIOX DECISIONS Complaint 73 F. T.

vested in it by said ,Acts, the Federal r J:.:1 ~ Commjssjon~ llavil'p: l' ea-SOIl J. De lei e thla:.,- ...ua 1 ,7 lit- ,.I'T'nrs. inc,. fl, eol.' DoratIOn trac 1112.' under its o"n name Rncl as :Hoppe-r Furs, and Edward Hopper, incli- .1.VICtl1:1.u.y112.11(. as fal Oil1Cerff-' OT Sall corporation, le1'8,111(1 tel' l'eierl'eCl.t to respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Rt:.gulatiolls promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act and it a )pearill,Q.' to the Commif;sioll that H, nI'oceeclino' b'7 it in res )ect issues its corn plaintthereof would be in the public interest, hereby.l stating' its chaI'Q'es in that re~Dect as follmys PARAGRAPH. 1. Respondent Quality Th~:ift Fnl's Inc. is a corporation organized, existing and doing bnsil12s8 1111cler and by virtue of the la,,-s of the State of ?\Iissouri. The corporation trades under its own na,me and as Hopper Furs.

R.esponclellt Ec1wa,rd Hopper is an officer or the said corporate respondent. He formuhttes, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies 01 the said corporate respondent.

Respondents are retailers of Iur products with their office, and principal place of business located at 425 North Seventh Street, St. Louis l\1missouri.

PAR. 2. Respondents are no", and for some time last past have been, engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in 1'118 selle, advertisillg, a:;:lc1 dlering for sale in COmll1erce, and in the transportation and distribution in commerce, of fur products; and hate sold advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products "which have been Il1clde in whole or in part of furs 'which have been shipped and recc-i-..-ed in commerce, as the tenns ;; co111m81'ce fur and ;; fnr product"' aI'\.', defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR, 3. Certain of said fur products \\ere misbranded in that they were not labeleel as required under the prm-isions of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act ruid in the manner and form pre, scribed by the TIules and Regulations promulgated the-reunder. Among such misbranc1ec1 fnr products, but not limited,d thereto, were fur Dl'oducts "ith labels which failed:

1~ To disclose that the fur contained i~l the, 1m: product ,,-as bleached dved. or other:",-i~e artificially colored. \"\ hen such lias the fact. . 2. To show the. JUtme, or ~ther ic1e.l;tification isslle,d and registered of the, persons who manufacturedbv the. Commission, of one or more. ~lY such fur product for introduction into eon:unerce, introduced it for sale, in into comple-ree, ~:o1c1 it in commerce, ac1yel'tisec1 or oflerec1 it commerce, or transpol' tecl or distributed it in commerce. l(,UI. 1011 P-"lR, 4. Cerbnn of Salet 1U1' procll1cts ,,- ere mls, ;)l' anoccl III ' r l of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they y, e1'e not labeled in nc- QUALITY THRIFT' FURS , Il\"C. , ET AL. 575 573 Complaint cordance with the Rules ~nc1 Regulations promulgated thereunder in .:cne :LO .lO\VlllQ.' re.sneets.1. : (a) The term ';' Dyed1 310uton Larllb~~ "RS not set forth on labels in the. manner I'eqllirecl by law, in violation or Rule D or said Rules and Reguh, tions.

(b) The term "assemblecl'~ "\yas used on label:; to describe fur products compo;3ed of pieces in lien of tile required terms, in violation of Rule 20 (c1) of saiel Rules and Regula :ions. (c) Information required under Sectioll -:1:(:2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder \YfiS not set forth in the required sequence, in violation of Rule 30 of saiel :HuJcs and Regulations.

(cl) Hequired item numbers ,.....ere not set forth on labels, in violation of ule 40 of said Hules and Regulations. PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondents in that they "ere 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 fa.lsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, "ere fur products covered b~- illl-oices which failed: 1. To ~;hoy the true animalllall1e of the ful' used in ani' such fur product.

:2. To sho"\\ that the fur products contained or were composed of used fur, when such was the fact.

3. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleach- , c1:n~cl, or otherwise fil'tificinl1y colored, "\yhen such ~\vas the. fact. .J. To ~how the country or origin of imported fnr used in any such fur product.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not. invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) The. term "natural~' was not used on invoices to describe fur products" hic.h were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or other- ,yi~' e a:rtificiully colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The disclosure "Second-hand " ""here required was not set Jorth on i::'l~T.ices, in violation cf Rule. 2;J of saiel Rules and Regular j ons.

(c) Rpfinirecl item numbers ,were not. set forth 011 invoices, in violahon of Ertle -10 of saiel Rules and Regulations. 576 ;FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Decision and Order 73 F.

PAR. 7. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations proInulgated thereunder and constitute unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive ads and 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 resi)ondents havine: been furnished thereafter with a copy or 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, ,'\onlc1 charge respondents \with viola. tion of the Federal Track Commission .Act. and the FLU' 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 or said ag~'eement is for settlement purposes onl~- and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the la,,- has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and other:r prm-isiolls as required by the Commission s Rules: and The Commission having thereafter considered the matter and having determined that it had reason to believe that the respondents have violated the said Acts, and that c.complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, and ha.ving thereu pon accepted the e,xecuted consent agreement and plac.ed such agreement on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in ~ 2.34 (b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its coll1plaint, makes the follolVing jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Quality Thrift Furs, Inc., is a corporation organized existine: and doine: business under and bv virtue of the la IVS of the State of ~1missouri, with its office and principal place of business located at 425 North Seventh Street, St. Louis, )'lissouri. Respondent Edward Hopper is an officer of 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.

QL'ALI'TY THRIYT F"CR:3 .. IXC. , ET AL. 577 573 Decision fllld Order ORDER It is oJ'Cle?' That respondents Quality Thrift Furs, Inc., a corporation, trading under its own name or any other name or names, and Edward Hopper, individually and as an officer of sftid 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 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 "com1l1erce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling' Act. do forthwith cease and desist from: A. :Misbranding any fur prod uet by :

1. Failing to affix a label to such product showing in words and in figures plainly legible all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4(2) the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed :Mouton Lamb" on a label in the manner required "here an eleet.ion is made to use that term instead of the term "Dyed Lamb. 3. Setting forth the te-rlll " assembled" or any term of like import as part of the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and egulations promulgated thereunder to describe such fur product composed in whole or in substantial part of paws tails, bellies, sides, flanks, gills, ears, throats, heads, serap pieces or waste fur.

4. Failing to set forth information required under section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the R.ules and R.egulations promulgated thereunder on a label in the seqnenee required by R.ule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

5. Failing to set forth on a label the, item number or ma-rk assigned to such fur product.

B. Falsely:r or deceptively invoicing any fur product bT: 1. Failing to furnish an invoice, as the term "invoice" is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

578 FEDERAL 'rrade CO:L\DlISSION DECISIONS Complaint 73 F. T, 2. Failing to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on an invoice under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations prOll1ulgatecl thereunder to describe. such fur product "which is not pointed, blea..ched, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

3. Failing to disclose that such fur product is "Secondhand" when such fur product has been used or \lorn by an ultimate consumer a.nd is subsequently marketed in its original, reconditioned, or rebuilt form with or without the addition or any furs or used furs.

4. Failing to set forth on an invoice the it-eill number or mark assigned to such fur product.

It is fw,thej' O1'dered That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy or tills order to each of its operating divisions, t is jrnrthe'l' onleJ'ed That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them or this order, file with the ColTl1nission a report in writing setting forth in detail the mamler and fornl in which they have complied with this order.