The French Poodle, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF THE FRENCH POODLE, 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-l069. Complaint, May 19G6-Decision, May, 1966 Consent order requiring a Washington, D. , retail furrier, to cease falsely advertising and invoicing its fur products in violation of the Fur Products Labeling 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 The French Poodle, Inc., a corporation, and Louella Epstein, individually and as an offcer of said corporate respondent, hereinafter referred to as respondents have violated the provisions of said Act 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, The French Poodle, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Maryland.

Individual respondent Louella Epstein is an offcer of the corporate respondent. Said individual respondent Louella Epstein alone is responsible for the acts, practices and policies of the corporate respondent, including the acts and practices hereinafter referred to, Respondents are in the business of retailing fur products and have their offce and principal place of business located at 1623 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, D. , with two branch stores located at 1211 Connecticut Avenue, NW. , and 511 11th Street, ;\W., Washington, D.

PAR. 2, Subsequent to the effective date of the Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9, 1952, the 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 THE FRENCH POODLE, INC. , ET AL, 775 774 Complaint 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 fuls 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 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 the respondents which appeared in issues of the Washington Post, a newspaper published in the city of Washington, D.

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 fur products were composed of used fur, when such was the fact.

PAR. 4. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein the 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 foJ1owing respects. (a) The term "natural" was not used to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificiaJ1y colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of the said Rules and Regulations.

(b) All parts of the information required under Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder were not set forth in type of equal size and conspicuousness and in close proximity with each other, in violation of Rule 38 (a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. PAR. 5. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein the respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that certain of said advertisements contained the name or names of an animal or animals other than those producing the Complaint 69 F.

fur contained in the fur product, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 6, 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 claims and representations were based, in violation of Rule.44(e) of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 7. 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 show that the fur product contained or was composed of, used fur, when such was the fact, 3. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur product was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artifically colored, when such was the fact.

4. To show the country of origin of imported furs used in fur products.

PAR, 8. 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 "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, (c) The disclosure "second hand " where required, was not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 23 of said Rules and Regulations.

THE FRENCH POODLE , INC. , ET AL. 777 774 Decision and Order (d) Required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Rule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 9. The aforesaid acts and practices of the 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 Jaw 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 The French Poodle, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Maryland, with its offce and principal place of business located at 1623 Connecticut Avenue, NW. Washington, Respondent Louella Epstein is an offcer of the said corporate respondent and her offce and principal place of business is the same as that of the said 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 69 F. T.

ORDER It is ordel' That respondents The French Poodle, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and Louella Epstein, individually and as an offcer 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 the terms "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. 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 porduct, 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.

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 Regulations.

3. Fails to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed in the 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 set forth all parts of the information required under Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in type of equal size and conspicuousness and in close proximity with each other.

B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: 1. Failing to furnish invoices, as the term "invoice " is EVERGREEN WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTORS, INC. , ET AL, 779 774 Syllabus defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, 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. 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.

3, 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, 4. Failing to disclose that fur products contain are composed of second-hand used fur.

5. Failing to set forth on invoices the item number or mark assigned to fur products, C. 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.