Alaskan Fur Company, Inc.

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

In tee Marrer or ALASKAN FUR COMPANY, 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-892. Complaint, Apr. 15, 1965 — Decision, Apr. 15, 1965 Consent order requiring Kansas City, Mo., retailers and wholesalers of fur products to cease mislabeling, falsely invoicing, and deceptively advertising fur products in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act, by failing to disclose on labels the country of origin of imported furs, failing to use the term “Natural” on labels, invoices, and in newspaper advertisements to describe furs which are not bleached, dred, or artificially colored, failing Complaint 67 F.T.C.

to show the true animal name of furs on invoices and in advertisements, misrepresenting savings in newspaper ads and window signs through fictitious prices, and failing to maintain adequate records to support such 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 Alaskan Fur Company, Inc., a corporation, Meyer Finkel, Myron Wang and M. Leonard Markel, individually and as officers of the 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:

Paracrapy 1. Alaskan Fur Company, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Missouri.

Respondents Meyer Finkel, Myron Wang and M. Leonard Markel 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 and wholesalers of fur products with their office and principal place of business located at 1107 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Missouri.

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 to show the country of origin of the imported furs contained in the fur product. ALASKAN FUR CO., INC., ET AL. 457 455 Complaint 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 inasmuch as 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.

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 in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder inasmuch as 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. 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 said Act. , ;

Among and included in the aforesaid advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents which appeared in issues of the Kansas City Times, a newspaper published in the city of Kansas City, State of Missouri.

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. 379-702—71——80 Complaint 67 E.T.C.

Par. 8. Respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products, in violation of Section 5(a)(5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44(a) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder by representing, directly or by implication, through oral statements, statements appearing in newspapers such as “ANNUAL AFTER THANKSGIVING FUR OLEARANCE SALE,” “UNBELIEVABLE FASHIONS AT PRE-CHRISTMAS SALE PRICES,” “AFTER CHRISTMAS SALE FUR CLEARANCE,” “JANUARY FUR CLEARANCE SALE.” “WE MUST HAVE NO CARRY OVERS; OUR ENTIRE STOCK IS OFFERED AT IMMEDIATE CLEARANCE PRICES,” “JAN- UARY FUR CLEARANCE 4 To } orr,” and window display signs containing such statements as “JANUARY FUR CLEARANCE” and “ENTIRE STOCK DRASTICALLY REDUCED! MANY Up TO + OFF OTHERS BELOW COST,” that the prices of such fur products were reduced from the actual bona fide prices at which the respondents. offered the products to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business and the amount of such purported reduction constituted savings to purchasers of respondents’ fur products. In truth and in fact the purported reductions were reductions from the respondents’ ticketed prices which were fictitious in that they were inflated prices set forth on the labels affixed to such fur products and were not actual bona fide prices at which respondents had sold the products, intended to sell the products, or had offered the products to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business and the said fur products were not reduced in prices as represented and savings were not afforded purchasers of respondents’ fur products as represented.

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 vio- Jation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that said fur products were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder inasmuch as 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.

Par. 10. 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 ALASKAN FUR CO., INC., ET AL. 459 455 Decision and Order representations were based, in violation of Rule 44(e) of the said Rules and Regulations.

Par. 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 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. Respondent Alaskan Fur Company, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Missouri with its office and principal place of business located at 1107 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Missouri. Respondents Meyer Finkel, Myron Wang and M. Leonard Markel are officers of the corporate respondent and their address is the same as that of the corporate respondent.

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 Lt is ordered, That respondents Alaskan Fur Company, Inc., a corporation and its officers, and Meyer Finkel, Myron Wang and M. Decision and Order 67 E.T.C.

Leonard Markel, individually and as officers of said corporation and respondents’ representatives, agents and employees, directly or indirectly, 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 the terms “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 Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices as the term “invoice” is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act 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, 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 were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

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. Represents, directly or by implication in advertising or otherwise, that a purchase of respondents’ product made HANDMACHER: CO., INC., ET AL, 461 435 Syllabus at less than the ticketed price or purported regular or former price, is a reduction from or savings on such price, unless the respondents are able to establish that such price is, in fact, the regular bona fide price at which the said respondents have sold or expect to make substantial sales. 2. 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.

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 Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe fur products which are not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored.

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.