Margo'S, Inc.

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

In THE Matrer or MARGO’S, INC., rrapine as MARGO’S-LA MODE, ETC. CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket C-890. Complaint, Mar. 25, 1965—Decision, Mar. 25, 1965 Consent order requiring a Dallas, Texas, retailer of fur and textile fiber products, to cease misbranding, falsely advertising, and deceptively invoicing its fur products, and falsely advertising its textile fiber products. Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Margo’s, Inc., a corporation, trading as Margo’s-La Mode, and Margo’s-Downtown, and Margo’s-Preston, Inc., corporations, and Joseph Glickman and Hyman Glickman, individually and as officers of said corporations, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the pro- Complaint 67 F.T.C.

visions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Textile Fiber Products Identification 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. Respondents Margo’s, Inc., trading as Margo’s-La Mode, and Margo’s-Downtown, and Margo’s-Preston, Inc., are corporations organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas. Their office and principal place of business is located at 3607 Oak Lawn Avenue, Dallas, Texas. Individual respondents Joseph Glickman and Hyman Glickman are officers of said corporations and formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of said corporations, including those hereinafter set forth. Their office and principal place of business is the same as that of said corporations.

Respondents are retailers of fur products and textile fiber products and operate fifteen branch stores.

Par. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act of 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 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. 8. 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 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 introduction 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. 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:

MARGO’S-LA MODE, ETC. 369 867 Complaint 1. 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.

2, Required item numbers were not set forth on labels, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. Par. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by respondents in that they were not invoiced with any of the information required by Section 5(b)(1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations thereunder.

Par. 6, 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 that:

(a) 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.

(b) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. ~ Par. 7. 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 Dallas Morning News, a newspaper published in the city of Dallas, State of Texas.

Par. 8 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 certain of said fur products were falsely or deceptively identified 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(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Among such falsely and deceptively advertised fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products advertised as “Broadtail” thereby implying that the furs contained therein were entitled to the Complaint 67 E.T.C.

designation “Broadtail Lamb” when in truth and in fact they were not entitled to such designation.

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 that:

(a) The term “Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb” was not set forth in the manner required, in violation of Rule 10 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) The disclosure that fur products were composed in whole or in part of paws, tails, bellies, sides, flanks, gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap pieces or waste fur was not made, where required, in violation of Rule 20 of the said Rules and Regulations. Par, 10. The acts and practices of the respondents, as set forth in Paragraphs Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight and Nine were and are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted and now constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Par. 11. Subsequent to the effective date of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act on March 8, 1960, respondents have been and are now engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction, sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce; and in the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, and in the importation into the United States, of textile fiber products; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported, textile fiber products, which have been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported or caused to be transported, after shipment in commerce, textile fiber products, either in their original state or contained in other textile fiber products, as the terms “commerce” and “textile fiber product” are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

Par. 12. Certain of said textile fiber products were falsely and deceptively advertised in that respondents in making disclosures or MARGO’S-LA MODE, ETC. 371 867 Complaint implications as to the fiber content of such textile fiber products in written advertisements used to aid, promote, and assist directly or indirectly in the sale or offering for sale of said products, failed to set forth the required information as to fiber content as specified by Section 4(c) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act.

Among such textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, were articles of wearing apparel which were falsely and deceptively advertised in newspapers of interstate circulation in that the true generic names of the fibers in such articles were not set forth. Par. 13. Certain of said textile fiber products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act in that they were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder. Among such textile fiber products but not limited thereto, were textile fiber products which were falsely and deceptively advertised in newspapers of interstate circulation in the following respects : A. A fiber trademark was used in advertising textile fiber products, namely women's apparel, without a full disclosure of the fiber content information required by the said Act and the Rules and Regulations thereunder in at least one instance in said advertisement, in violation ‘of Rule 41(a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. B. A fiber trademark was used in advertising textile fiber products, namely women’s apparel, containing more than one fiber and such fiber trademark did not appear in the required fiber content information in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fiber in plainly legible type or lettering of equal size and conspicuousness, in violation of Rule 41(b) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

C. A fiber trademark was used in advertising textile fiber products, namely women's apparel, containing only one fiber and such fiber trademark did not appear, at least once in the said advertisement, in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fiber, in plainly legible and conspicuous type, in violation of Rule 41(c) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. Par. 14. The acts and practices of the respondents, as set forth in Paragraphs Twelve and Thirteen were and are in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act, and constituted and now constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of Decision and Order 67 F.T.C.

competition, in commerce, within the intent and meaning of 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, the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Textile Fiber Products Identification 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 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. Respondents Margo’s, Inc., a corporation, trading as Margo’s-La Mode, and Margo’s-Downtown, and Margo’s-Preston, Inc., are corporations organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas, with their office and principal place of business located at 3607 Oak Lawn Avenue, Dallas, Texas. Respondents Joseph Glickman and Hyman Glickman are officers of said corporations and their office and principal. place of business is the same as that of said corporate respondents. 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 Margo's, Inc., a corporation, trading as Margo’s-La Mode, and Margo’s-Downtown, and Margo’s-Preston, Inc., corporations, and Joseph Glickman and Hyman Glickman, individually and as officers of said corporations, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, do forthwith cease and desist from intro- ‘ MARGO'S-LA MODE, ETC. 373 367 Decision and Order ducing into commerce, or selling, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or transporting or distributing in commerce, any fur product; or selling, advertising, offering for sale, transporting, or distributing, 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 unless each such product has securely affixed thereto or placed thereon a stamp, tag, label or other means of identification: (a) Correctly showing in words and in figures all of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. (b) Setting 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. (c) Setting forth on labels the item number or mark assigned to fur products.

Ii is further ordered, That respondents Margo’s, Inc., a corporation, trading as Margo’s-La Mode, and Margo’s-Downtown, and Margo’s-Preston, Inc., corporations, and Joseph Glickman and Hyman Glickman, individually and as officers of said corporations, 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. Falsely and 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 by each of the subsections of Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2, 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.

Decision and Order 67 ELT.C, 3. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to fur products.

B. 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. Falsely or deceptively identifies any such fur product as to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product. 2. Fails to set forth the term “Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb” in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words “Dyed 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 disclose that fur products are composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, sides, flanks, gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap pieces or waste fur. It is further ordered, That respondents Margo’s, Inc., a corporation, trading as Margo’s-La Mode, and Margo’s-Downtown, and Margo’s-Preston, Inc., corporations, and Joseph Glickman and Hyman Glickman, individually and as officers of said corporations, and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, delivery for introduction, sale, advertising, or offering for sale, in commerce, or in the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, or the importation into the United States, of any textile fiber product; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported, of any textile fiber product which has been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported, after shipment in commerce, of any textile fiber product, whether in its original state or contained in other textile fiber products, as the terms “commerce” and “textile fiber product” are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, do forthwith cease and desist from falsely and deceptively advertising textile fiber products by:

ADMIRAL CORP. 375 867 Syllabus 1. Making any representations, by disclosure or by implication, as to the fiber contents of any textile fiber product in any written advertisement which is used to aid, promote, or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale or offering for sale of such textile fiber product, unless the same information required to be shown on the stamp, tag, label or other means of identification under Sections 4(b)(1) and (2) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act is contained in the said advertisement, except that the percentages of the fibers present in the textile fiber product need not be stated.

9. Using a fiber trademark in advertisements without a full disclosure of the required content information in at least one instance in the said advertisement.

3. Using a fiber trademark in advertising textile fiber products containing more than one fiber without such fiber trademark appearing in the required fiber content information in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fiber in plainly legible type or lettering of equal size and conspicuousness.

4, Using a fiber trademark in advertising textile fiber products containing only one fiber without such fiber trademark appearing at least once in the advertisement, in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fiber, in plainly legible and conspicuous type.

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.