Richard Robert Edwards, Etc

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

IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD MARTIN SAMPSON TRADING AS RICHARD ROB- ERT EDWARDS, ETC.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1553. Complaint, July 1969-Decision, July 2, 1969 Consent order requiring a New York City retail furrier to cease misbranding, deceptively invoicing and falsely advertising his 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 Richard Martin Sampson, an individual trading as Richard Robert Edwards and as Pall-Lib, Inc. Complaint 76 F.

hereinafter referred to as respondent, has 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 Richard Martin Sampson is an individual trading as Richard Robert Edwards and as Pano-Lib, Inc. under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. Respondent is a retailer and/or dealer in fur products. His address is 100 West 57th Street, New York, New York. Respondent has no other business address.

PAR. 2. Respondent is now and for some time last past has been 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 has 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 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 was a fur product with a label which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in such ful' 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 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.

4. To show the country of origin of the imported furs contained in such fur product.

PAR. 4. Certain of saif fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not la- RICHARD ROBERT EDWARDS, ETC.

Complaint beled 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 "natural" was not used on labels to describe the 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.

3. Information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in handwriting on labels, in violation of Rule 29 (b) of said Rules and Regulations. 4. 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 of said Rules and Regulations. 5. 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 the respondent 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 thereunder. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto were fur products covered by invoices which failed to show that the said fur products contained or were composed of bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored fur when such was the fact.

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 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 "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 76 F.

3. Required item numbers were not set forth, 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 the respondent which appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times, newspapers published in the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles, California, respectively, which have a wide circulation in the State of California and in other States of the United States.

Among such false and deceptive advertisements but not limited thereto, were advertisements which failed: 1. To show that the fur contained in such products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

2. To show the country of origin of imported furs contained in any such fur product.

PAR. 8. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that said fur products were not advertised in accordance with Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that 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. 9. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertisements represented, contrary to fact, that certain fur products were from the 1969 Paris collection of Jean Revion in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44 (g) of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the aforesaid Act.

PAR. 10. The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondent as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act RICHARD ROBERT EDWARDS, ETC.

Decision and Order and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION AND ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondent named in the caption hereof, and the respondent having been furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Textiles and Furs proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondent with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act; and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondent of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent that the law has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and other provisiems as required by the Commission s Rules; and The Commission having thereafter considered the matter and having determined that it had reason to believe that the respondent has violated the said Acts, and that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, and having thereupon accepted the executed consent agreement and placed such agreement on the pubic record for a period of thirty (30) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in 34 (b) of its Rules the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent Richard Martin Sampson is an individual doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. He trades under his own name and as Richard Robert Edwards and Pano-Lib, Inc. His address is 100 West 57th Street New York, New York.

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

Decision and Order 76 F.

ORDER It is ordel' That the respondent Richard Martin Sampson, an individual trading as Richard Robert Edwards and as Pano-Lib Inc. or under any other name or names, and respondent' s 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 ufur product" are defmed in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. Misbranding any fur product by:

1. Failing to affx a label to such fur product showing in words and in figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4 (2) of thc Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Setting forth required information under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form on the label affxed to such fur product. 3. Failing to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on a label under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

4. Setting forth the information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in handwriting on a label affxed to such fur product. 5. Failing to set forth information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder on a label in the sequence required by Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

6. Failing to set forth on a label the item number or mark assigned to such fur product.

RICHARD ROBERT EDWARDS, ETC.

Decision and Order B. Falsely or deceptively invoicing any fur product by: 1. Failing to furnish an invoice, 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 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 an invoice under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed, or otherwise artificially colored. 4. Failing to set forth on an invoice the item number or mark assigned to such fur product.

C. Falsely or deceptively advertising any fur product through the use of any advertisement, representation, puhlic announcement or notice which is intended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale, or offering for sale of any such 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.

2. 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 such fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed, or otherwise artificially colored. 3. Represents, directly or by implication, that such fur product is from the 1969 Paris collection of Jean Revion or from any source unless such source is in fact the true source of the fur product being advertised. It is further ordel' That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon him of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he has complied with this order. Complaint 76 F.