Rodder's Mademoiselle

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

IN THE MATTER OF RODDER' S MADEMOISELLE ET AL.

CONSBNT ORDER , ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VOI,ATION OF THE FEDERAr, TRADE C031MISSJON AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABEJ..IKG ACTS Docket 0-630. Complaint, Dec. 1963-Decision, Dec. , 1968 Consent order requiring retail furriers in Fresno, Calif., to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failng, in invoicing and newspaper adver Using, to show the true animal Dame of fur used in fur products and the country of origin of imported furs; failng, in inveicing, to disclose when fur was artificially colored, using the term "Mink" tor Japanese :Mink, using "Broadtail" deceptively, nnd failng to use tbe terms "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" and "Natural" as required on invoices; setting forth the name of an animal other than that producing certain furs, faHing to use the term "Natural" where required, and representing prices falsely as reduced by making such statements as "Save at least 25%", in adver Using i failng to comply with other invoicing and advertising requirements; and failng to maintain adequate records as a basis for pricing claims. 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 Rodder s Mademoiselle, a corporation, and Abraham L. Rodder and Samuel E. Rodder, individually and as offcers 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 Rodder s Mademoiselle is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California.

1682 FEDERAL TRADE CQ1I111ISSIQN DECISIONS Complaint 63 F.

Respondents Abraham L. Rodder and Samuel E. Rodder are offcers 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 offce and principal place of business located at 1045 Fulton Street, Fresno, California.

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, transportd 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. PAIL 3. 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 thc 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. 4. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced with respect to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 5 (b) (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Amdng such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products which were invoiced as Iink" when in fact the fur contained in such products was Japanese Mink and fur products which were invoieed as "Broadtail" thereby implying that the furs contained therein were entitled to the designation "Broadtail Lamb" when in truth and in fact they were not entitled to such designation.

PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they RODDER' S MADEMOISELLE ET AL. 1683 1681 Complaint 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 Hules 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 "Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb" was not set forth on invoices in the manner required by law in violation of Hule 10 of said Hules 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 Hegulations.

( d) Information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Hules 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 containing different animal furs, in violation of Hule 36 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 the said Act. Among and included in the aforesaid advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements which appeared in issues of the Fresno Bee, a newspaper published in the city of Fresno, State of California.

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 the country of origin of imported furs contained in fur products.

PAR. 7. 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 sllch advertisements set forth the name of an animal other than the name of the animal that produced the fur from which the said fur products had been manufactured, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 8. In advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid respondents represented through such statements as "Save at least 25%" that FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIO DECISIONS1684 Decision and Order 63 F.

prices of fur products were reduced in direct proportion to the percentages stated and that the amount of said reduction afforded savings to the purchasers of respondents' 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 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) Information required under Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Hules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of the said Hules and Hegulations.

describe fur products (b) The term "natural" was not used to which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(9) of the said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 10. In advertising fur products for sale, as aforesaid, respondcnts 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 Aet. 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.

P AH. 11. 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 , RODDER' S MADE?vIOTSELLE ET AL. 1685 161'1 De(+;ioll al1cl Order The re.spondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by respondents of all the jurisdicbona.1 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 la". has been vi.olated as set forth in such com. plaint, 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 forlIl contemplated by said agreements makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent Radder s :Mademoiselle is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the State of California, with its offce and principal plncp, of business located at lOci;' Fulton Street, Fresno, California.. Respondents Abraham L. Hodder and Samuel E. Radder are offcers of the corporate respondent and their address is the saine as that of corporate respondent.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proc.eeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

OIWER 1 t -is ordered That respondents Roclder s :Mademoiscl1e, a corporation, and its offcers and Abmham L. Rodder and Samuel E. Hodder individually and as offcers of said corporaiion, and respondents representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in c.connection with the introduction into commerce, or t.he saJe, advertising or oflering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in c.Olleree, of a,ny fur product; or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale, trallSportat.ion 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 the t.terms "commerce fur and "fur product ' are defined in the For T)roducts -Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: i\, Falsely or deceptively invoic.ing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of :fur products showing in ,words and figures p1ainJy legible all the informat.ion required to be disclosed ill each of the subsections of Sect.ion D(b) (1) of t.he Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Setting forth on involces pertaining to fur products ftny false. or deceptive information with respect to the name or 'T:-O- CHS-G9- 10i 1686 FEDERAL TRADE CO?o1j\I!SEION DECISIO:\S Decision and Order 63 F.

designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in such fur product.

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 tenn "Dyed Broadtail-processed LaTnb" in the manner required ,yhere an ejection is lnacle to use that. Lerm instead of the " ords "Dyed Lamb" 5. Fai.ling to set forth the term " J\-' aturar' as part of the information requ11'ec1 to be disclosed on invoices under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules a,nd liegulat.ions promulgat.ed thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

6. Failing to Sf',t 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. B. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement or notice which is intended to aid, promow 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 tbe information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labcling Act.

2. Sets forth the name or names of any animal or animals other than the name of the animal producing the furs contained in the fur product as specified in the Fur Products Name Guide and as prescribed by the Rules and Ilcgulations. 3. Represents directly or by implication through percentage savings claims that prices of fur products are reduced to ajIord purchasers of respondents' :fur products the percentage of s Lvings stated when the prices of such fur products a.re not reduced to afford to purchasers the percentage of savings stated.

4. 1isrepresents in any manner the savingsava.ilable to purchasers of respondents' fur products.

5. Fa,lsely or deceptively represEmts in any ma.nner tlift prices of respondents' fur products are redneeel. GENERAL RE,CREATIOX n';DeSTRIE'6 INC. Err AL. 1687 1681 Complaint 6. Sets forth information required under Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Hules and Regulationspromulgatecl thereunder in abbreviated form. 7. 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 HeguJations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

C. J\hking' 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 unle;ss there are maintained by respondents full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representa ti ons are based.

I t 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.