Robert Blum trading as Blum Fur Company

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

=: In THE Matrer or “ROBERT BLUM TRADING AS BLUM FUR COMPANY CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 0-301. Complaint, Jan. 23, 1968—Decision, Jan. 28, 1968 Consent order requiring a furrier in Seattle, Wash., to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by such practices as substituting labels with other numbers for those bearing the registered identification number, and using labels which failed to identify the manufacturer, etc., on fur products; fail- , ing to show on invoices the true animal name of fur used or the country of origin of imported products, and to disclose when fur was artificially colored or when it was natural; advertising in newspapers which failed to disclose when fur products contained artificially colored fur or when the fur was natural, represented fur prices as reduced from “regular” prices which were in fact fictitious, stated falsely that “Every item has been reduced ¥% price”, represented fur products from other suppliers as: his own distinctive style and exclusive design, and falsely represented products offered as including a large selection of Jaguar and Somoli Leopard garments; 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. ComMPLAINT 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 Robert Blum, an individual trading as Blum Fur Company, 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 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:

Paracrary 1. Robert Blum is an individual trading as Blum Fur Company with his office and principal place of business located at 1008 Western Avenue, Seattle, Wash. The respondent is a manufacturer and retailer of fur products.

Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, respondent has been and is 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 has manufactured for sale, sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur prod- Complaint 62 F.T.C.

ucts 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 violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were falsely and deceptively labeled or otherwise falsely and deceptively: identified with respect to the registered identification number appearing on labels. Respondent in substituting labels for the labels affixed to fur products by his suppliers used an arbitrarily selected number that was not assigned to him by the Federal Trade Commission pursuant to the Fur Products Labeling Act and the said Rules and Regulations.. 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 name, or otheridentification issued and registered by the Commission of one or more: of the persons who manufactured any such fur product for introduction into commerce, introduced it into commerce, sold it in commerce;, advertised or offered it for sale in commerce, or transported or dis-: tributed it in commerce.

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 thereunderwas set forth in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 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 set forth in handwriting on labels, in violation of Rule 29(b) 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 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 in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated! thereunder.

BLUM FUR CO. 83 81 Complaint 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 the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored, when in fact the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

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

Par. 7. 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 from which said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 5(b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 8. 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) Information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The term “blended” was used as part of the information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe the pointing, bleaching, dyeing, tip-dyeing or otherwise artificially coloring of furs, in violation of Rule 19(f) of said Rules and Regulations. (c) The term “natural” was not used 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. (d) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 9. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in that said 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 respondent, which appeared Complaint 62 F.T.C.

in issues of the Seattle Post Intelligencer, a newspaper published in the city of Seattle, State of Washington. Among such false and deceptive advertisements of fur products, but not limited thereto, were advertisements which failed to disclose that fur products contained or were composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur, when in fact such fur products contained or were composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur.

Par. 10. By means of the advertisements referred to in Paragraph 9, and other advertisements of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondent represented prices of fur products as having been reduced from regular or usual prices and that the amount of such reductions constituted savings to the purchasers, where the so-called regular or usual prices were in fact fictitious in that they were not the prices at which said merchandise was usually sold by respondent in the recent regular course of business and no savings were thereby afforded to the purchasers, in violation of Section 5(a)(5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44(a) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the said Act. Par. 11. In advertising fur products for sale, as aforesaid, respondent represented through such statements as “Every item has been reduced 1% price” that prices of fur products were reduced in direct proportion to the percentage of savings stated. when in fact such prices were not reduced in direct proportion to the percentage of savings stated, in violation of Section 5(a)(5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Par. 12. In advertising fur products for sale, as aforesaid, respondent represented that.all the. fur products offered for sale were distinctively styled and exclusively designed by the respondent when in truth and in fact the majority of fur products offered for sale weré procured from other suppliers, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Par. 13. In advertising fur products for sale, as aforesaid, respondent represented that the fur products offered for sale included a large selection of Jaguar and Somoli Leopard garments when in truth and in fact the fur products offered for sale failed to include any Jaguar or Somoli Leopard garments, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Par. 14, Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder inasmuch as such fur products were not described as natural when such fur products were not pointed, bleached, BLUM FUR CO. 85 81 Decision and Order dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(g) of said Rules and Regulations.

Par, 15. Respondent in advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid, 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. 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. 16. Respondent has sold, advertised, offered for sale and processed fur products which have been shipped and received in commerce, and has 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. 17. 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 and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. DECISION AND ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondent named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondent having been 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 respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondent 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 respondent 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:

749-537—67—_7 Order 62 F.T.C.

1. Respondent Robert Blum is an individual trading as Blum Fur Company with his office and principal place of business located at 1008 Western Avenue, Seattle, Wash.

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 ordered, That respondent Robert Blum, an individual trading as Blum Fur Company or under any other trade name, and respondent’s representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, or manufacture for 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, manufacture for sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution, of any fur product which has 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. Falsely or deceptively labeling or otherwise identifying such products by setting forth on labels a registered identification number that is not assigned to respondent under the provisions of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.

B. Failing to affix labels to fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

C. Setting forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form. D. Setting forth information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting. E. Failing to set forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in therequired sequence. 2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Failing to furnish invoices to purchases of fur products showing all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

BLUM FUR CO. 87 Order - B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing or otherwise identifying any such product as to the name or names of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which such product was manufactured.

C. 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.

D. Setting forth the term “blended” as part of the information required under Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe the pointing, bleaching, dyeing, tipdyeing or otherwise artificial coloring of furs. ; E. Failing to describe fur products as natural when such fur products are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

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

3. 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:

A. 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. B. Represents directly or by implication that the regular or usual price of any fur product is any amount which is in excess of the price at which respondent has usually and customarily sold such product in the recent regular course of business.

C. Represents directly or by implication through percent- -age savings claims that prices of fur products are reduced in direct. proportion to the percentage of savings stated when the prices of such products are not reduced in direct proportion of the percentage of savings stated. D. Represents in any manner that savings are available to purchasers of respondent’s fur products when in fact such savings are not available to purchasers of respondent’s fur products.

E. Represents directly or by implication that any fur product is in stock and for sale when in fact such fur product is not in stock.

Complaint 62 F.T.C.

F. Represents directly or by implication that fur products were styled and designed by respondent, when in fact such fur products were not styled or designed by respondent. G. Fails to describe fur products as natural, when such fur products are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

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 respondent full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based.

It is further ordered, That respondent 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 respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon him of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he has complied with this order.