Bruce of California

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

In THe Matrer or BRUCE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 0-270. Complaint, Nov. 29, 1962—Decision, Nov. 29, 1962 Consent order requiring Oakland, Calif., furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by labeling as “natural,” fur which was in fact artificially colored; failing, on Jabels and invoices, to show the true animal name of fur and the country of origin of imported furs and to disclose when fur products contained artificially colored fur; failing to identify the manufacturer, etc., on labels, and to describe as “natural” on invoices, fur products which were not artificially colored; invoicing fur products falsely with respect to the names of animals producing furs; advertising falsely by radio that all their furs were labeled to show the true name of the animal producing them and the correct country of origin of imports; failing to maintain adequate records as a basis for price and value claims; and failing in other respects to comply with requirements of the Act. 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 Bruce of California, a corporation, and Bruce Evander, individually and as an officer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

Paragraph 1. Respondent Bruce of California 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 521 Fourteenth Street, Oakland 12, Calif. Respondent Bruce Evander is an officer of the said corporate respondent and controls, directs and formulates the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent. His office and principal place of business is the same as that of the said corporate respondent. The corporate respondent and the individual respondent manufacture, wholesale and retail fur products.

‘F28-122—65——82 Complaint 61 F.T.C.

Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in the manufacture for 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 manufactured for sale, sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which had 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 falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely and decep- tively identified in that the fur products were labeled to show that the fur contained therein was natural when in fact such fur was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

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 :

1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product. 2. To disclose that fur products contain or are composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur when in truth and in fact such fur products contain bleached, dyed or ctherwise artificially colored fur.

3. To show the name or other identification issued and registered by the Commission of one or more of the persons who manufactured such fur product for troduction into commerce, introduced it into commerce, sold it in commerce, advertised or offered it for sale, in commerce, or transported or distributed it in commerce. 4, To show the country of origin of the imported furs contained in the fur product.

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 BRUCE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. 1287 1285 Complaint was mingled with non-required information, in violation of Rule 29(a) of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) 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 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 thereunder.

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 fur used in the fur product. 2. To disclose that fur products contain or are composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur when in truth and in fact such fur products contain bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur.

3. To show the country of origin of the imported furs contained in the fur product.

Par. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in that they were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) Fur products were not described as natural when such fur products were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(g) of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. . Par. 8. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced or otherwise falsely and deceptively identified with respect to the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur, in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 9. Certain of said fur products were falsely or deceptively advertised in that certain fur products were not advertised as required under the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Said advertisements were intended to aid, promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of said fur products. :

Among and included in the advertisements as aforesaid, but not limited’ thereto, were advertisements of respondents which were Decision and Order 61 F.T.C.

broadcast over radio station KNBC, a radio station located in the city of San Francisco, State of California, and having wide coverage in said State and various other States of the United States. Among such false and deceptive advertisements of fur products, but not limited thereto, were advertisements containing the statement “All furs sold by Bruce of California are labeled to show their true name description and country of origin, in conformance with Government Regulations” thereby representing directly or by implication that the fur products in the stock of the respondents were labeled with the true name of the animal that produced the fur and the correct country of origin of the imported furs contained in the fur products, when in truth and in fact certain of the labels attached to the fur products in the stock of the respondents failed to contain the true name of the animal that produced the fur or the correct name of the country of origin of the imported furs contained in fur products, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 10. In advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid respondents made claims and representations respecting prices and values of fur products. Said representations were of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated 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.

Par. 11. Respondents have sold, advertised, offered for sale and processed fur products which have been shipped and received in commerce, and have misbranded said fur products by substituting for the labels affixed to such fur products, by manufacturers or distributors pursuant to Section 4 of the Fur Products Labeling Act, labels which did not conform to the requirements of said Section 4, in violation of Section 3(e) of said Act.

Par. 12. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Decision AND ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondents having been served with notice of BRUCE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. 1289 1285 Decision and Order 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 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 does 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’s 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, Bruce of California, 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 521 14th Street, in the city of Oakland, State of California. Respondent Bruce Evander 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.

ORDER It is ordered, That respondents Bruce of California, a corporation, and its officers, and Bruce Evander, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, manufacture for introduction, or the sale, advertising, or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce of fur products, or in connection with the sale, manufacture for sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution of fur products which have been made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as “commerce”, “fur” and “fur product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: 1. Misbranding fur products by:

A. Representing directly or by implication on labels that the fur contained in fur products is natural when the fur contained in such fur products is pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

B. Failing to affix labels to fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be Decision and Order 61 F.T.C.

disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

C. Setting forth on labels affixed to fur products information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder mingled with nonrequired information. D. Failing to set forth the information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the sequence required by Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products 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.

B. Falsely and deceptively invoicing fur products or otherwise falsely and deceptively identifying such fur products with respect to the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which such product was manufactured.

C. Failing to describe fur products as natural when such fur products are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

D. Failing to set forth the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

83. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products 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 fur products and which represents that fur products are labeled, invoiced, and advertised in accordance with the requirements of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, when such fur products are not labeled, invoiced, and ady ertised in accordance with the requirements of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

4, Making claims and representations of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act unless there are maintained by respondents full and adequate PHILIP ROSENTHAL CO. 1291 1285: Complaint records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based.

It is further ordered, That respondents Bruce of California, a corporation, and its officers, and Bruce Evander, individually and as an ofiicer of said corporation, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the selling, offering for sale, or processing fur products which have been shipped or received in commerce, do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding fur products by substituting for the labels affixed to such fur products pursuant to Section 4 of the Fur Products Labeling Act labels which do not conform to the requirements of the aforesaid Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

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.