Belk'S Department Store of Augusta, Georgia, Inc.

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

In THe Matter oF BELK'S DEPARTMENT STORE OF AUGUSTA, GEORGIA, 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-902. Complaint, June 2, 1965—Decision, June 2, 1965 Consent order requiring two Augusta, Ga., furriers to cease misbranding, falsely invoicing and advertising their fur products. 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 Belk’s Department Store of Augusta, Georgia, Inc., a corporation, and Belk’s Suburban Store of Augusta, Georgia, Ine., a corporation, and Harry L. Howard, individually and as an cfticer of the aforesaid corporations, 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: ParacrapH 1. Respondent Belk’s Department Store of Augusta, Georgia, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Georgia with its office and principal place of business located at 835 Broad Street, Augusta, Georgia.

Respondent Belk’s Suburban Store of Augusta, Georgia, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Georgia with its office and principal place of business located at Daniel Village, Augusta, Georgia. Individual respondent, Harry L. Howard is an officer of the corporate respondents and formulates, directs and controls the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondents including those hereinafter set forth.

Coniplaint 67 I.T.C Respondents are retailers of fur products. Individual respondent has his office and principal place of business located at 835 Broad Street, Augusta, Georgia.

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 transpertation and distribution, in commerce, of fur products: and hare sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been 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.

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 prodvet.

2. 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:

1. Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth on labels in abbreviated form, in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

2. The term “Dyed Mouton Lamb” was not set forth on labels in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 9 of said Rules and Regulations.

. The term “natural was not used on labels to describe fur pr duets which were not. pointed, bleached. dyed, tip-dved, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19(@) of said Rules and Regulations.

4. Labels affixed to fur products did not comply with the minimum size requirements of one and three-quarter inches by two and threecuarter inches, in violation of Rule 27 of said Rules and Regulations. 5. Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations pr omulgated thereunder BELK’S DEPARTMENT STORE OF AUGUSTA, GEORGIA, INC., ET AL. 983 981 Complaint was set forth in handwriting on labels, in violation of Rule 29(b) of said Rules and Regulations.

6. Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth in the required sequence, in violation of Rule 30(a) of said Rules and Regulations.

7. 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 as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labelng Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under such Act. -Anong 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 bieached, 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 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.

Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products which were invoiced as “Nat Sable U.S. Canada,” when, in fact, the fur contained in such products was Sable, American.

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. 1. 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. 2. The term “Dyed Mouton Lamb” was not set forth on invoices in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 9 of said Rules and Regulations.

3. 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.

Complaint 67 EVT.C.

4. 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 Augusta Chronicle Herald,” a newspaper published , in the city of Augusta, State of Georgia. Among such false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements which failed to show: 1. The true animal name of the fur used in the fur product. 2, 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 respect: 1. The term “Dyed Mouton Lamb” was not set forth in the manner required in violation of Rule 9 of the said Rules and Regulations. 2, 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. Par. 10. In advertising fur products for sale, as aforesaid, respondents made pricing claims and representations ofthe 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. 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. BELK’S DEPARTMENT STORE OF AUGUSTA, GEORGIA, INC., ETAL. 985 981 Decision and Order 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 Belk’s Department Store of Augusta, Georgia, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Georgia, with its office and principal place of business located at 885 Broad Street, in the city of Augusta, State of Georgia.

Respondent Belk’s Suburban Store of Augusta, Georgia, Inc., is ‘a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Georgia, with its office and principal place of business located at Daniel Village, in the city of Augusta, State of Georgia.

Respondent Harry L. Howard, is an officer of said corporations, and his address is the same as that of Belk’s Department Store of Augusta, Georgia, Inc.

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 Belk’s Department Store of Augusta, Georgia, Inc., a corporation, and Belk’s Suburban Store of Augusta, Georgia, Inc., 2 corporation, and their officer Harry L. Howard, individually and as an officer of said corporations, and re- Decision and Order. 67 F.T.C.

spondents’ 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 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. Setting forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form on labels affixed to fur products.

8. Failing to set forth the term “Dyed Mouton Lamb” on - Jabels in the manner required where an election is made to: use that term instead of the term “Dyed Lamb.” 4. 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.

5, Affixing to fur products labels that do not comply with the minimum size requirements of one and three-quarter inches by two and three-quarter inches, as required by the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations. Promulgated thereunder.

6. 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.

7. Failing to set forth information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder on labels in the sequence required by Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

BELE’S DEPARTMENT STORE OF AUGUSTA, GEORGIA, INC., ET AL. 987 981 © Decision and Order 8. Failing to set forth on labels the item number or mari assigned to a fur product.

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. Setting forth on invoices pertaining to fur products any false or deceptive information with respect fo the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in such fur product.

8. 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 “Dyed Mouton Lamb” in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words “Dyed 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 the 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 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 subsections of Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

9. Fails to set forth the term “Dyed Mouton 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 Regula- Complaint 67 F.T.C.

tions 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.