Felix Friedman

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

In Tue Marrer or FELIX FRIEDMAN TRADING AS FELIX FRIEDMAN CONSENT ORDER. ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FED~ ERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-515. Complaint, June 28, 1968—Decision, June 28, 1968 Consent order requiring a Cincinnati furrier to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by labeling fur products improperly as “Bleached Natural Mink”; by failing to use the term “Natural” where required in labling, invoicing and advertising; by advertising in newspapers which falsely represented that prices were reduced from so-called usual retail prices which Complaint 62 F.T.C.

were in fact fictitious, and that buyers could “SAVE 4% AND MORE”; by substituting nonconforming labels for those affixed by the manufacturer ; and by failing to comply in other respects with requirements of the Act. CompLaINtT 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 Felix Friedman, an individual, 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: Paracrapu 1. Respondent Felix Friedman is an individual trading under his own name.

Respondent is a retailer of fur products with his office and principal place of business located at 18 West Seventh Street, Cincinnati, Ohio. 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 sale, 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 and received in commerce, as the terms “commerce”, “fur” and “fur product” are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 8. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise falsely and deceptively identified with regard to whether or not the fur contained therein was natural or was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Section 4(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products with labels describing the fur contained in the fur product as “Bleached Natural Mink” when in fact the fur, if bleached, was not properly described as “Natural” and if natural was not properly described as “Bleached”.

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 that the term “Natural” was not used on labels to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, tip-dyed, or otherwise FELIX FRIEDMAN 1435 1433 - Complaint artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 5. 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 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 “Natural” was not used on invoices to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or artificially colored, in violation, of Rule 19(g) of said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 6. 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 said Act. Among and included in the aforesaid advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondent which appeared in issues of the Cincinnati Enquirer, a newspaper published in the city of Cincinnati, State of Ohio.

Par. 7. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and other advertisements of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertisements represented that the prices of fur products were reduced from regular or usual retail prices and that the amount of such price reductions afforded savings to the purchasers of respondent’s products, when the so-called regular or usual retail 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 the represented savings were not 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. 8. In advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid, respondent represented through such statements as “SAVE 144 AND MORE” that prices of fur products were reduced in direct proportion to the percentages stated and that the amount of said reduction afforded savings 14386 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Decision and Order 62 F.T.C.

to the purchasers of respondent’s products, when in fact such prices were not reduced in direct proportion to the percentages stated and the represented savings were not thereby afforded to the said purchasers, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. Par. 9. 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 said fur products were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

(a) Information required under Section 5(a) 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 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 artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(g) of the said Rules and Regulations. Par. 10. Respondent in introducing, selling, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in processing for commerce, fur products; and in selling, advertising, offering for sale and processing fur products which have been shipped and received in commerce, has misbranded such fur products by substituting thereon, labels which did not conform to the requirements of Section 4 of the Fur Products Labeling Act, for the labels affixed to said fur products by the manufacturer or distributor pursuant to Section 4 of said Act, in violation of Section 8(e) of said Act.

Par. 11. 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 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 respond- FELIX FRIEDMAN 1487 1433 : Order ent 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 i in the form contemplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Felix Friedman is an individual trading as Felix Friedman, with his office and principal place of business at 18 West Seventh Street, in the city of Cincinnati, State of Ohio. 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 Lt is ordered, That respondent, Felix Friedman, an individual trading as Felix Friedman, or under any other name, and his representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, i in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation or distribution of fur products in commerce, or in connection with the 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 Acct, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Misbranding fur products by:

(a) Setting forth conflicting information on labels with respect to whether the fur contained in fur products is natural or is bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored. (b) Failing to set forth the term “Natural” as part of the information required to be disclosed on labels under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

2. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by : (a) 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. (b) 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”.

(c) Failing to set forth the term “Natural” as part of the information required to be disclosed on invoices under the Fur Order 62 F.T.C.

Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored. 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) Sets forth information required under Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form. (b) 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 fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially: colored.

(c) Represents, directly or by implication, that any price, when accompanied or unaccompanied by any descriptive language, was the price at which the merchandise advertised was usually and customarily sold at retail by the respondent unless such advertised merchandise was in fact usually and customarily sold at retail at such price by respondent in the recent past.

(d) Represents, directly or by implication through percentage savings claims that prices of fur products are reduced to afford purchasers of respondent’s fur products the percentage of savings stated when the prices of such fur products are not reduced to afford to purchasers the percentages of savings stated.

(e) Misrepresents in any manner the savings available to purchasers of respondent’s fur products.

(f) Falsely or deceptively represents in any manner that prices of respondent’s fur products are reduced. It is further ordered, That respondent, Felix Friedman, an individual trading as Felix Friedman, or under any other name, and respondent’s representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, sale, advertising or offering for sale, in commerce, or the processing for commerce, of fur products; or in connection with the selling, advertising, offering for sale, or processing of fur products which have been shipped and 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 EMO WATCH CO., ETC. 1439 1483 Complaint labels which-do not conform to the requirements of the aforesaid Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. It ts 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.