Stefani Bros

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

IN THE MATTER OF STEFANI BROS., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1525. Complaint, Apr. 28, 1969—Decision, Apr. 28, 1969 Consent order requiring a San Francisco, Calif., manufacturer and wholesaler of fur products to cease misbranding, falsely invoicing and advertising its fur products and failing to maintain required records in support of pricing claims.

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 Stefani Bros., a corporation, and Aladino Stefani, A.C. Killian and Fred F. Bellero, individually and as officers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the [54 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint % F.T.C.

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 Stefani Bros. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California.

Respondents Aladino Stefani, A.C. Killian and Fred F. Bellero are officers of the corporate respondent..They formulate, direct and control the policies, acts and practices of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth. Respondents are manufacturers and wholesalers of fur products with their office and principal place of business located at 209 Post Street, San Francisco, California. 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,” “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 and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products with labels which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of the animal or animals which produced the fur used in such fur products. 2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

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

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 promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

(a) The term “natural” was not used on labels to describe STEFANI BROS., ET AL. 755 753 Complaint 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.

(b) The disclosure that fur products were composed in whole or in substantial parts of paws, tails, bellies, sides, flanks, gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap pieces or waste fur, as required, was not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 20 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth separately on labels with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs, in violation of Rule 36 of ’ said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondents in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under such Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur . products, but not limited thereto, were fur products covered by invoices which failed:

1. To show the true animal name of the animal or animals which produced the fur used in such fur products. 2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

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

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced 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(b)(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products which were invoiced as “Broadtail” thereby implying that the furs contained therein were entitled to the designation “Broadtail Lamb” when in truth and in fact the furs contained therein were not entitled to such designation.

Par. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that Complaint 75 E.T.C, they were not invoiced: in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.and the Rules and Regulations. promulgated thereunder was set forth on invoices in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations. (b) | 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. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that certain advertisements intended to aid, promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of such fur products. were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(a) of the said Act.

Among and included in the aforesaid advertisements but not limited thereto, were advertisements prepared by respondents which appeared under the name of Levy Bros., a department store located at Fourth and Ellsworth in the city of San Mateo, State of California, and which advertisements appeared in issues of The Times, a newspaper published in the city of San Mateo, State of California and having a wide circulation in California and in other States of the United States. Among such false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements which failed to show the true . animal name of the animal or animals which produced the fur used in such fur products.

Par. 9. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that certain of said fur products were falsely or deceptively identified with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 5(a)(5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such falsely and deceptively advertised fur products, put not limited thereto, were fur products advertised as “China Mink” when the fur contained in such fur products was, in fact, “Chinese Weasel.”

Also among such falsely and deceptively advertised fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products advertised as “Broadtail” thereby implying that the furs contained therein ‘STEFANI BROS., ET AL. — 757 153 Decision and: Order were entitled to the designation. “Broadtail Lamb” when in truth and in fact:the furs contained therein were not entitled to such designation.

‘PAR. 10. 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 “Dyed ‘Broadtail-processed Lamb” was not set: forth in the manner required, in violation of: Rule 10.:of said Rules :and Regulations. Par. 11. 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, that the prices of such fur products were reduced from respondents’ former prices 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 they were not actual, bona fide prices at. which _ 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 said fur products were not reduced in price as represented and savings were not afforded purchasers of respondents’ said fur products, as represented. Par. 12. In advertising fur products for sale, as aforesaid, respondents made pricing claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Regulations under the Fur Products Labeling Act. Respondents in making such claims and representations failed to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations were based, in violation of Rule 44(e) of said Rules and Regulations.

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 Decision and Order 75 F.T.C.

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 settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as: alleged: in such complaint, and waivers and other provisions 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 Act, and that complaint. should issue stating its charges in that. respect, and 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 § 2.34(b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: :

1. Respondent Stefani Bros. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California with its office and principal place of business located at 209 Post Street, San Francisco, California. Respondents Aladino Stefani, A.C. Killian and Fred F. Bellero 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 Stefani Bros., a corporation, and its officers, and Aladino Stefani, A.C. Killian and Fred F. Bellero, individually and as officers 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 STEFANI BROS., ET AL. 759 153 Decision and Order any fur product which is made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms “commerce” “fur” and “fur product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: A. Misbranding any fur product by:

1. Failing to affix a label to such fur product showing in words and in figures plainly legible all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections _of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Failing to set forth the term “natural” as part of the information required to be disclosed on a label under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored. 3. Failing to disclose on a label that such fur product is composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, sides, flanks, gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap pieces or waste fur. .

4, Failing to set forth separately on a label attached to such fur product composed of two or more sections containing different animal fur the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to the fur comprising each section. B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing any fur product by: 1. Failing to furnish an invoice, as the term “invoice” is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Setting forth on an invoice pertaining to such fur products any false or deceptive information with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in such fur product. 3. Setting forth information required under Section 5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form on an invoice pertaining to such fur product. 4. Failing to set forth the term “Dyed Broadtailprocessed Lamb” in the manner required where an elec- Decision and Order 75 F.T.C.

tion is made. to use that term instead of the words “Dyed Lamb.”

.C. Falsely or deceptively advertising any fur product 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 offering for sale of any such fur product, and which:

1. Fails to set forth in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. __ ' 2. Fails to set forth the term “Dyed Broadtail-process- _ed Lamb” in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words “Dyed Lamb.”

3. Falsely or deceptively identifies any fur product as ~ to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur. contained in the fur product. 4, Represents, directly or by implication, that any price whether accompanied or not by descriptive terminology is the respondents’ former price of such fur product when such price is in excess of the price at which such fur product has been sold or offered for sale in good faith by the respondents on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business, or otherwise misrepresents the price at which such fur product has been sold or offered for sale by respondents.

5. Falsely or deceptively represents that savings are afforded to the purchaser of any such fur product or misrepresents in any manner the amount of savings afforded to the purchaser of such fur product. 6. Falsely or deceptively represents that the price of any such fur product is reduced.

D. Failing to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which pricing claims and representations of the types described in subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, are based. It is further ordered, That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions.

LEVY BROS. 761 7153 Complaint It is further 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.