Steinbach Company, Inc

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

IN THE MATTER OF STEINBACH COMPANY, INC.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1609. Complaint, Oct. 30, 1.96.9-Decision, Oct. 30, 1969 Consent order requiring an Asbury Park, N. , department store to cease misbranding and falsely invoicing its furs and falsely advertising its fur and textile products.

COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Steinbach Company, Inc. , a corporation, 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 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 Steinbach Company, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

Respondent operates a department store with its offce and principal place of business located at 531 Cookman Avenue, Asbury Park, New Jersey.

PAR. 2. Respondent is now, and for some time last past has been, engaged in the introduction into comnlerce, and in the sale Complaint 76 F.

advertising, and offering for sale in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution in 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 which have been shipped al1,d received in commerce, as the terms "commerce fur" and "fLiI' product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely or deceptively identified with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fnr from which the said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 4 (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto were fur products which were labeled as "Broadtail" thereby implying that the furs contained therein were entitled to the designation " Broadtail Lamb" when in truth and in fact the furs contained therein were not entitled to such designation. PAR. 4. 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 to show the true animal name of the animal or animals which produced the fur used in such fur products.

PAR. 5. 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) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth on labels 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 labels in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 10 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) The term "natural" was not used on labels to describe fnr products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or oth- STEINBACH CO. , INC. 519 Complaint erwise517artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regnlations.

(d) Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in handwriting on labels, in violation of Rule 29 (b) of said Rnles and Regulations. (e) Information required 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 said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondent in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regnlations 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 furs used in any such fur products.

PAR. 7. 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 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. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that respondent set forth on invoices pertaining to fur products the name of an animal other than the name or names 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. Complaint 76 F.

PAR. 9. 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 Regnlations 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 "Persian Lamb" was not set forth on invoices in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 8 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) 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.

(d) The term "natural" was not used on invoices 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. 10. 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 01' 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 of respondent which appeared in issues of the Asbury Park Evening Press, a newspaper published in the city of Asbury Park, State of New Jersey and having a wide circulation in New Jersey and in 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 animal or animals which produced the fur used in such fur products. 2. To show that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

PAR. 11. 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 prod- STEINBACH CO. , INC. 521 517 Complaint ucts were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) The term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth in the manner required, in violation of Rule 10 of the said Rules and Regulations.

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

PAR. 12. 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 fnr 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 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. 13. In advertising fur products for sale, as aforesaid, respondent 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. Respondent 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.

PAR. 14. 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 and practices in comlnerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 15. Respondent is now and for some time last past has been engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction, sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, and in the Complaint 76 F.

mportation into the United States, of textile fiber products; and has sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, textie fiber products, which have been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; and has sold, 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 flber product" are defined in the Textie Fiber Products Identification Act. PAR. 16. Certain of said textile fiber products were falsely and deceptively advertised in that respondent, in making disclosures or implications as to the fiber content of such textile fiber products in vaitten advertisements used to aid, promote, and assist directly or indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale of said products, failed to set forth the required information as to fiber content as specified in Section 1( c) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regnlations promulgated under said Act. Among such textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were textile fiber products which were falsely and deceptively advertised in the Asbury Park Evening Press, a newspaper published in the city of Asbury Park, State of ew Jersey, and having a wide circulation in New Jersey and various other States of the United States, in that the true generic names of the fibers present in such products were not set forth.

PAR. 17. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondent falsely and deceptively advertised textile fiber products in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act in that said textile fiber products were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations thereunder in the following respects:

(a) In disclosing the required fiber content information as to floor coverings containing exempted backings, fillings, or paddings, such disclosure was not made in such a manner as to indicate that such required fiber content information related only to the face, pile or outer surface of the floor coverings and not to the backings, fillings, or paddings, in violation of Rule 11 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

(b) Fiber trademarks were used in advertising textile fiber products without a full disclosure of the fiber content information STEINBACH CO. , INC. 523 Complaint517required by the said Act and the Rules and Regulations thereunder in at least one instance in said advertisements, in violation of Rule 41 (a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. (c) A flber trademark was used in advertising a textie fiber product containing only one fiber and such fibcr trademark did not appear at least once in the said advertisement in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fiber to which it related in plainly legible and conspicuous type 01' lettering in violation of Rule 41 (c) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 18. The acts and practices of the respondent as set forth in Paragraphs Sixteen and Seventeen above were, and are, in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act 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 under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISIO:- AND ORDER The Federal Trade COll1mission 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 Textie Fiber Products Identification 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 agrecment is for settement 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 s 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, and having thereupon accepted the executed consent agreement and placed such agreement on the Dccision and Order 76 F.

public record for a period of thirty (30) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in 9 2.34(b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent Steinbach Company, 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 531 Cookman Avenue, Asbury Park, New Jersey.

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 respondent Steinbach Company, Inc. , a corporation, and its offcers, representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporation 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. Misbranding any fur product by:

1. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise falsely or deceptively identifying any such fur product as to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product. 2. Failing to affx a label to such fur product showing in words and in figures plainly legible all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 1 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 3. Setting forth information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promnlgated thereunder in abbreviated form on a label affxed to such fur product. 4. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" on a label in the manner required where an election is made to use that term in lieu of the term Dyed Lamb, STEINBACH CO. , INC. 525 517 Decision and Order 5. Failng 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 promnlgated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointed, belached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

6. Setting forth information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting on a label affxed to such fur product.

7. Failng to set forth information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling 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 invoicing any fur product by: 1. Failing to furnish an invoice, as the term "invoice is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Setting forth on an invoice pertaining to such fur product any false or deceptive information with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in such fnr product. 3. Setting forth on an invoice pertaining to such fur product the name 01' names of any animal or animals other than the name of the animal producing the fur contained in the fur product as specified in the Fur Products Name Guide, and as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations.

4. Setting forth information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rnles and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form or an invoice pertaining to such fur product. 5. Failing to set forth the term "Persian Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the word "Lamb.

6. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words "Dyed Lamb.

Decision and Order 76 F.

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

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. Falsely or deceptively identifies any fur product as to the name or designation or the animal or animals that produced the fnr contained in the fur product. 3. Fails to set forth the term "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words "Dyed Lamb, 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 such fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed, or otherwise artifically colored.

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) Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, are based.

It is further ordered That respondent Steinbach Company, Inc. , a corporation, and jts offcers, representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introdnction, delivery for introduction, sale advertising or offering for sale, in commerce, or the transportation or causing to be transported, or the importation into the United States, of any textie fiber product; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation or STEINBACH CO. , INC.. 527 517 Decision and Order 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 textie fiber products, as the terms "commerce and "textile fiber product" are defined in the Textile Fiber Product Identification Act, do forthwith cease and desist from falsely or deceptively advertising any textile fiber product by: 1. Making any representation, by disclosure or by implication, as to the fiber content of such textie fiber product in any written advertisement which is used to aid, promote or aesist, directly or indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale of such textie fiber product, unless the same information required to be shown on the stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification under Section 4(b) (1) and (2) of the Textie Fiber Products Identification Act is contained in the said advertisement, except that the percentages of the fiber present in a textile fiber product need not be stated. 2. Failing to set forth in disclosing the required fiber content information as to floor coverings containing exempted backings, fillings or paddings, that such disclosure relates only to the face, pile or outer surface of such textie fiber products and not to the exempted backing, fillngs or paddings.

3. Using a fiber trademark in advertising such textile fiber product without a full disclosure of the required content information in at least one instance in said advertisement. 4. Lsing a fiber trademark in advertising such textile fiber product containing only one fiber without such fiber trademark appearing at least once in the said advertisement, in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fiber and in plainly legible and conspicuous type or lettering.

It is fUTtheT O?'de?' That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribnte a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions.

It is fUTthe?' o?'dered That respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report, in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with this order. Complaint 76 F.