BGS Shoe Corporatiox

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

IN THE :MATTER OF BGS SHOE CORPORATION ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER ETC. IN REGARD TO Tile ALLEGED nol\TION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE CO::BIlSSIOX ACT Docket 11/. Complaint, .Api". 19GB-Decision. A_f!. lG, 1.92 Consent order requiring manufacturers of ladies' shoes and slippers in :\Ianchester, K. , to cease representing falsely in advertisements in trade publications and on their shoe boxes-by such wording as " .. DEERSKI casuals. . . " and ". . . fabulous DEERTAN casuals. . ."-that their shoes were made from leather produced from deer hides. COl\IPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act. and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that BGS Shoc Corporation, a corporation, and Eli A. Cohen, "\Villiam Lubell, Petcr S. Frcedman, and Arnold J. Cohen, individually and as offeers of BGS Shoe Corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, ha,ve violated the provisions of said 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 BGS Shoe Corporation is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Nmy Hampshire with its principal offce and place of business located at Iil1yarc1 at Stark Street Ianchester, X.H. In. dividual respondents Eli A. Cohen William Lubell, Peter S. Freed. man and Arnold J". Cohen are ofiicers of said corporation. They formulate, direct and control the policies of the corporate respondent. The address of the individual respondents is the same as that of the corporate respondent.

PAR. 2. Respondents are now, and for some time last past have been engaged in the manufacture, advertising, offe.ring for sale, sale and distribution of ladies ' shoes and slippers to retailers for resale to the public.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents now cause and for some tinle last past hayc crtnsed, said ladies' shoes and slippers, when sold, to be shipped from their place of business in the State of New Hampshire to the purchasers thereof located , and at all timesin other States of the Gnited States and maintain mentioned herein have maintaine, , a substantial course of trade in said shoes and slippers in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in 719-60g--64--8 740 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DE,CISIO Decision and Order 60 F.

the Federal Trade Commission Act. The volume of business done by respondents in said shoes and slippers in commerce is now, and has been, substantial.

PAR. 4. Respondents in the course and conduct of their business have been, and are, engaged in substan6al competition in commerce with corpora60ns, firms and individuals engaged in the sale and distribu60n of ladies' shoes and slippers. PAR. 5. In the course and conduct of their business and for the purpose of inducing the purchase of ladies' shoes, respondents have advertised in trade publicaHons, and on their shoe boxes. Among and typical, but not all inclusive, of the statements appearing in said advertisements are the following:

DEER TAN A complete family of fabulous DEERSKIN casuals in the popular priced field.

Another sensational show stopper: fabulous DEER'l'AN* casuals in the popular price field (At the bottom of the page in smaU print the following appears: .A soft sllppJe tannage of fine quality, top-grained cowhide) PAR. 6. By and through the use of the aforesaid statements respondents represented, and now represent, that their ladies' shoes are made from leather produced from deer hides.

PAR. 7. In truth and in fact the saiclladies' shoe are made from a leather material other than the hide of a deer. PAR. 8. Respondents by means of the aforesaid acts and practices have furnished to others the means and instrumentalities of deceiving the pubhc as to the composition of said shoes. PAR. D. The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondents have the capacity and tendency to confuse the public as to the composition of their shoes and to mislead the pubhe into the erroneous and mistaken belief that the shoes are produced from deer hides and into the purchase thereof by reason of such erroneous and mistaken belief. PAR. 10. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, "ere and are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents' competitors and constituted, and now constitute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce, "within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION Al'm ORDER The Commission ha.ving heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof with violation , BGS SHOE CORP. ET AL. 741 739 Decisioll and Order of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the respondents having been served with notice of said determination and with a 'copy of the complaint t.he Commission intended to issue, together \with a proposed form of order; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed a,n agreement containing a c.nsent order, an admission by respondents of all 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 doe not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as set forth in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission 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:

1. Respondent BGS Shoe Corporation is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Hampshire, with its offce and principal place of business located at :VfjJyard at Stark Street, in the city of Manchester, State of New Hampshire.

Respondents Eli A. Cohen, William Lubell, Peter S. Freedman and Arnold J. Cohen 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 subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER 1 t is ordered l11at respondents BGS Shoe Corporation, a corporation, and its offcers, and Eli A. Cohen Wiliam Lubell, Peter S. Freednmn and Arnold J. Cohen, individually and as omcers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate 01' other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale or distribution of shoes or other products, in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Using the words DEERSKIN, DEERTAN, DEER TAN or any other word or words of similar import 0'r meaning, to designate or describe products which are not in fact made from the hides of deer; or other ise misrepresenting in any manner the composition of any of their products.

742 FEDERAL TRADE COM:vnSSION DECISIONS Complaint 60 F.

2. Furnishing to others any means or instrumentalities by or through which the public may be misled with respect to any of the representations prohibited in paragmph 1 hereof. It is further ordered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, fie with the Conm1ission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and foml in which they have complied with this order. IN THE Thl\ TTER OF BERDA V, INC., ET AL.

CONSEN'!' ORDER , ETC., IX HEG \.RD TO Tile ALLEGED nol\TION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE co)nnSsIO AXD THE WOOL Products LAHEUNG ACTS Docket 0-118. Complaint, A- pl'. 1962-Dt' cision, Apr. i6. 1962 Consent order requiring Xcw York City distributors of wool products to cease violating the Wool Products Labeling Act by labeling ")'Iade in England" woolen fabrics which ,were made in Japan; representing falsely that they d a place of business in London through use on labels of the name "LOlldon" and an emblem resembling the Royal Arms of the British Empire in conjunction with their corporate name; and labeling certain fabrics "Mohair and Wool" without setting forth the per entag('s of such fibers. C03(PLUNT Pursuant to the proTisiollS of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the ,Vool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by the said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Bel'clav, Inc., a corporation, anu lCenneth Rivlin and Shirley RivEn, individually and as offcers or the said c.orporation, hereinafter refe,rrecl to fls respondents, have violated the provisions or said Acts and the Hnles and Regulations promulgated under the .Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereor would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows :

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Berdav, Inc., is a corporation organized existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Xew York. Individual respondents Kenneth Rivlin and Shirley Hivlin are President and Secretary, respectively, of the corporate respondent. Said individual respondents, c.ooper,ate in formulat ing, directing and controlling the acts, policies and practices of the BERDAV) INC. ) ET AL. 743 742 Complaint said corporate respondent, including the acts and practices hereinafter referred to. All respondents have their offces and principal place of business at 238 Fourth Avenue, New York, N. P.\R. . Subsequent to the effective date of the 11'001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 , and more especially since 194:8, respondents have int.produced into commerce, sold, transported, dist.ributed, delivered for shipment, shipped and offered for sale, in commerce, \Vool products, as the terms "c0I111nerce" and " \Vool product:: are defined in the said Act. PAR. 3. Certain of said wool products were misbranded by the respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a) (1) of the 11'001 Products Labeling Act of 1939, and the Rules and Regnlations promulgated thereunder, in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or tagged "ith respect to the country of manufacture. Among such misbranded, ool products, but. not limited thereto were fabrics labeled "l\fade in England", whereas in truth and in fact said ,,oole,n fabrics were made. in Japan. PAR. 4. Certain of said "001 products were further misbranded by the respondents "within the intent and meaning of Section 4(a) (1) of the 11'001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and the Rnles and Regulations promulgated thereunder, in that they w"ere tagged or labeled with tags which represented, directly or by implication, that the respondents owned, operated or controlled a, place of business in London England, whereas in truth and in fact, respondents do not. own, operate or control a place of business in London, England. Among such misbranded woo! products, but not limited thereto \were fabrics with labels on which tho name "London: appeared in conjunction with the name of corporate respondent Berclav, Inc. together with the depielion of an emblern which resembles the Hoyal Arms of the British Empire.

\R. 5. Certain of said "001 products were further misbranded by respondents in that they ,"rere stamped, trtgged or labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4(a) ( ) of the 11'001 Produels Labe!ing Act of IDED and in the manner and form as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. Among such misbranded wool product:s, but not limited thereto were fabrics with labels which set forth the fiber content of such fabrics as "l\fohair and \VooF \Vithout setting forth the percent.ages of such fibers.

PAR. 6. Certain of said wool products ere misbl'Llc1ed in violation of the 11'001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 in that they "ere not labeled in accordance "ith the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that labels attached to the wool products represented , 744 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISION& Complaint GO F.

the fiber content of such products as "1Iohair and \VooF' Vl"ithollt setting fort.h the actual percentage of mohair contained therein, in violation of rule 18 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. PAR. 7. The acts and practices of respondents as set forth above were, and are, in violation of the \17001 Products Labeling Act of 10;3D and the Rules and R.egulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, anclllow constitute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. PAR. 8. Hesponclents are now, and for some time last past hfl\'8 been engaged in the offering for sale, sale and distribution of certain products, namely "Dolen fabrics, to La-ilors and suit manufacturers ,,,ho in turn manufacture the fabrics into suits and sen the same to the public. PAR. 9. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents now cause, and for some time last past have caused, their said products, "hen sold, to be shipped from their place of business in the State of Kc" York to purchasers located in various other States of the uniteel States and maintain, and at an times mentioned herein haye maintained, a substantial course of trade in said products in e0111mcree, as ':co11n1erce:' is defined in the Federal Tnu1e COlll,lj )si()Jl Act.

PAR. 10. Respondents in the course and conduct of their lmsine as aforesaid, have made statements on invoices and shipping memoranda to their customers misre.presenting the country of manufacture of certain of their said products. Among such misrepresentations but not limited thereto were statements representing woolen fabrics as having been ":Made in England" ,,-here as in truth and in fact, the said woolen fabrics were made in Japan.

\R. 11. There is a preference. nInong n sllustantiaJ nul1lJf'l' of the American purchasing public for woolen fabrics manufactured in England over those manufactured in Japan.

PAR. 12. By and through t.he use of the aforesaid misrepresentations on invoices to their customers, respondents placed in the hands of others the means and instrume.ntalities by and through which they may mislead and deceive the public as to the origin of their ' woolen fabrics.

PAR. 13. In the course and conduct of their business at fin times mentioned herein, respondents have been in substantial competition in commerce, with corporations, firms and individuals in the sale of woolen fabrics of the same general kind and nature as that sold by respondents.

BERDAV , INC. , ET AL. 745 742 Decision and Order PAR. 14. The use by the respondents of the aforesaid false, misleading and deceptive statements, representations and practices as aforesaid, has had, and now has, the capacity and tendency to mislead respondents' customers and 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 substantial quantities of the respondents' products by reason of such erroneous and mistaken belie.f. As a consequence thereof, substantial tra.de in commerce has been, and is being unfairly diverted to respondents from their competitors and substantial injury has thereby been, and is being, done to competition in COlnmerce.

PAR. 15. The aforesaid acts and practices of responc1('nts as herein alleged, were and and are a11 to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents' competitors and constituted, and now constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and lmfair methods of competition, in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION AXD ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof ,,-ith violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the ,Yool Products Labeling Act of 1039, and the respondents having bee.n served with notice of said determination and ,with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent. order, an fldmission by the respondents of all 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 const itute an admission by respondents that the In,,, has he en violated as set forth in such complaint, and waivers 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 contemp1atecl by stlid agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent, Berdav, Inc. is fI, rorporntion orgallizecl 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 238 Fourth A venue, in the city of N ew York, State of N cw York. Respondents Kenneth RivEn and Shirley RivEn are officers of 746 'FEDERAL TRADE CO;\BIISSIQS DECISIONS Decision and Order GO F.'f.

Lid 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.

onder It is orde)' That respondents Berc1a'i, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and I(enneth Rivlin and Shirley Riylin, individually and as offcers or said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection ,,"ith the introduction into commerce, or the offering for sale, sale, t.transportation, distribution, delivery for shipment, or shipment in commerce, of wool products, as the terms ';commerce" and wool products" are defmed in the ,Yool Products Labeling Act of 1939, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding \yool products by:

1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling or otherwise identifying such products as to the country of manufacture. 2. Falsely or deceptively, stamping, tagging, bbeling or otherwise identifying such products so as to represent in any manner, directly or by implication, contrary to fact, that respondents 0' , operate or control rt place of business in London, England, or my other place. 3. Failing to affx stamps, tags or labels to such products Shmyjllg each ele,ment of information required to be disclosed by Section "l(a) (2) other Wool ProdnctsLabeling Act of 19;39. i1. Stamping, tagging, labeling or otherwise ic1entifyillg such prod, nets as containing "nlOlmir:: \dthout setting forth the netual percentnge of the mol1;i1' contninE'cl therein.

It is fUi'their' ordered That tlw responclents Berdav, 1nc' a corporation and its offcers, and Kenneth RiYlin and Shirley EiYlin, inc1ividnnl)y 1111(1 ns oHicers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other cle\"ice, in connection '\"ith the offering for s:tle, sale, or distribution of fabrics or other products, in commerce, as "'commerce': is defined in the Fe(lcral Trade Commis:oion Act, do fortl1\Ylth cease and desist from:

A. :JIisreprE'sent.ing the country of lTlnnufacture of such products on irn"oiees\ shipping memoranda or in any other manner. B. Furnishing means and instrumentalities to others by ancl through ,,-hieh they may mislead the public. as to the cOllntry of origin of s11eh products.

RAILROAD COM:vrUXICATIONS SCHOOL, IXC. , ET AL. 747 742 Complaint It i8 fu.rthel' ordered That the respondents herein shah, within sixty (00) days after service upon them of this order, file with the COllllnission ft report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied ,yjth this oreler.