Vogue Furriers, Inc.

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

are, dismissed.

---

In the Matter of

VOGUE FURRIERS, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS

Docket C-528. Complaint, July 25, 1963—Decision, July 25, 1963

Consent order requiring Asheville, N.C., furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failing, in labeling, invoicing and advertising, to show the true animal name of fur, when fur was artificially colored and when "natural"; failing, in labeling and invoicing, to show the country of origin of imported furs; failing to use the term "Persian Lamb" in invoicing and advertising as required; in advertising in newspapers, falsely representing prices as reduced from so-called usual prices which were, in fact, fictitious, and misrepresenting the fur products as from the "Jay Thorpe collection"; failing to keep adequate records as a basis for pricing 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 Vogue Furriers, Inc., a corporation, and Charles Grand and Reuben Grand, individually and as officers 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 Vogue Furriers, Inc., is a corporation organized and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of North Carolina.

VOGUE FURRIERS, INC., ET AL. 301

300 Complaint

Respondents Charles Grand and Reuben Grand are officers of the corporate respondent and formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents are retailers of fur products with their office and principal place of business located at 42 Haywood Street, Asheville, North Carolina.

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 sale, advertising and offering for sale in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution in commerce, of fur products; and have 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. 3. 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 the fur contained in the fur product was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

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

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 the following respects:

(a) The term "natural" was not used on labels 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.

(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.

Complaint 63 F.T.C.

PAR. 5. 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 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 fur used in the fur product. 2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur product was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact. 3. To show the country of origin of imported furs used in fur products. PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced with respect to the name of the country of origin of imported furs used in such fur products, 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 covered by invoices which disclosed the name of the country of origin of the furs contained in such fur products as the United States, when the country of origin of such furs was, in fact, Russia. PAR. 7. 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 otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(g) of said Rules and Regulations. (d) Information required under Section 5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth separately on invoices with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections

VOGUE FURRIERS, INC., ET AL. 303

300 Complaint

containing different animal furs, in violation of Rule 36 of said Rules and Regulations.

(e) 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 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 the said Act.

Among and included in the aforesaid advertisements but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the Asheville Citizen Times, a newspaper published in the city of Asheville, State of North Carolina. Among such false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product.

2. To show that the fur contained in the fur product was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

PAR. 9. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that the said fur products were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) The term “Persian Lamb” was not set forth in the manner required, in violation of Rule 8 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 artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(g) of the said Rules and Regulations.

(c) Information required under Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth separately with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal fur, in violation of Rule 36 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 10. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and other advertisements of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertisements represented that the prices

Decision and Order 63 F.T.C.

of fur products were reduced from regular or usual prices and that the amount of such price reductions afforded savings to the purchasers of respondents' products, when 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 respondents 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 said Act.

PAR. 11. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertisements represented through such statements as: "Below is a partial listing of the many wonderful values you will find in this Jay Thorpe collection" that the fur products listed were a part of the Jay Thorpe collection when in truth and in fact part of the fur products thus listed, advertised and offered for sale were not part of such Jay Thorpe collection, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 12. In advertising fur products for sale, as aforesaid, respondents 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. Respondents in making such claims and representations failed to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such pricing claims and representations were based, in violation of Rule 44(e) of the said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 13. 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 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 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 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 admis-

VOGUE FURRIERS, INC., ET AL. 305

300 Decision and Order

sion 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 Vogue Furriers, Inc., is a corporation organized and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of North Carolina, with its office and principal place of business located at 42 Haywood Street, Asheville, North Carolina. Respondents Charles Grand and Reuben Grand are officers 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

It is ordered, That respondents Vogue Furriers, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Charles Grand and Reuben Grand, individually and as officers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate 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 "commerce", "fur", and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. Misbranding fur products by:

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

Decision and Order 63 F.T.C.

tions promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored. 3. Setting forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting on labels affixed to fur products. B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed in each of the subsections of Section 5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Misrepresenting in any manner, directly or by implication, the country of origin of the fur contained in fur products. 3. 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. 4. 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". 5. Failing to set forth the term "Natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on invoices under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored. 6. Failing to set forth separately information required under Section 5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs. 7. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to fur products. C. 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 any 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

VOGUE FURRIERS, INC., ET AL. 307

300 Decision and Order

subsections of Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Fails 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”.

3. 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.

4. Fails to separately set forth in advertisements relating to fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs the information required under Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to the fur comprising each section. 5. 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 by the respondents unless such advertised merchandise was in fact usually and customarily sold at such price by respondents in the recent past.

6. Misrepresents in any manner the savings available to purchasers of respondents’ fur products. 7. Falsely or deceptively represents in any manner that prices of respondents’ fur products are reduced. 8. Misrepresents the source or supplier of such fur products.

D. 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 records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations are based.

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.

Complaint 63 F.T.C.

IN THE MATTER OF

WESCO PRODUCTS COMPANY ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT

Docket C-529. Complaint, July 25, 1963—Decision, July 25, 1963

Consent order requiring Chicago distributors of universal joints, their "Mighty Press" for the assembly and disassembly of universal joints, and other automotive products, to cease disseminating to their distributors for use in reselling such products, catalog insert sheets which designated an excessive "Regular cost" price and a lower "Dealer cost", represented falsely as affording a substantial saving to purchasers; falsely represented that products described could be obtained without any cash investment by dealers; and misleadingly represented their universal joints as unconditionally guaranteed.

COMPLAINT

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 Wesco Products Company, a corporation, and Herbert A. Horwitz and Donald A. Horwitz, individually and as officers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have 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 Wesco Products Company is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Illinois, with its principal office and place of business located at 2300 South Parkway, Chicago 16, Illinois.

Respondents Herbert A. Horwitz and Donald A. Horwitz are individuals and officers of the above said corporate respondent. They formulate, direct and control the acts and practices of the corporate respondent, including the acts and practices hereinafter set forth. Their address 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 advertising, offering for sale, sale and distribution of universal joints, a press for the assembly and disassembly of universal joints, called the "Mighty Press", and other automotive parts and products, to wholesalers, jobbers and distributors for resale to dealer users of said merchandise and products.