Belk-Hudson Co., Inc

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

In tur Marrer or BELK-HUDSON Co., INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, TITE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING AND THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS IDENTIFICATION ACTS Docket C-1697. Complaint, Feb. 24, 1970—Decision, Feb. 24, 1970 Consent order requiring a Gadsden, Ala., retail store to cease misbranding and falsely invoicing its fur products, and falsely advertising its fur and 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 Belk-Hudson Co., Inc., a corporation, and Yates C. Dellinger, individually and as an officer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts Complaint 17 ETC.

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: Paracraru 1. Respondent Belk-Hudson Co., Inc., is a corporation, organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Alabama.

Respondent Yates C. Dellinger is an officer of the corporate respondent. He formulates, directs and controls the policies, acts and practices of the said corporate respondent including those hereinafter set forth.

Respondents retail various commodities including fur products and textile fiber products with their office and principal place of business located at 501 Broad Street, Gadsden, Alabama. Par. 2. Respondents are now, and for some time last past have 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 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. Pan. 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 true animal name of the animal or animals which produced the fur used in such fur products.

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:

(a) 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 Reeulations.

(b) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereun- BELK-HUDSON CO., INC., ET. AL. 179 177 Complaint der was not set forth in the required sequence, in violation of Rule 30 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 to show the true animal name of the animal or animals which produced the fur used in such 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 in the following respects: (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 Regulation. 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 Gadsden Times, a newspaper published in the city of Gadsden, State of Alabama and having a wide circulation in Alabama 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 the true animal name of the animal or animals which produced the fur used in such fur products. 2. To show that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

3. To show the country of origin of imported furs contained in fur products.

Par. 8. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of ‘similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, re- Complaint V7 ETL.C.

spondents 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 respects : (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.

Par. 9. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specificially 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 designation “Broadtail Lamb” when in truth and in fact the furs contained therein were not entitled to such designation. Par. 10. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and other advertisements of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products, In violation of Section 5(a)(5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereun- .der by representing, directly or by implication, that the prices of such fur products were reduced from respondents former prices and the amount of such purported reductions constituted savings to purchasers of respondents fur products. In truth and in fact, the alleged former prices were fictitious in that they were not actual, bona fide prices at which respondents offered the products to the public on a regular basis for a reasonable 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 the respondents said fur products, as represented. Par. 11. In advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid, respondents represented through such statement as “save up to 40%” that prices of fur products were reduced in direct proportion to the 177 Complaint percentages stated and that the amount of said reduction afforded savings to the purchasers of respondents products when in fact such prices were not reduced in direct proportion to the percentages stated and the represented savings were not thereby afforded to the said purchasers, in violation of Section 5(a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

Par. 12. 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. 18. 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 methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. Par. 14. Respondents are now and for some time last past have been 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 and 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. 15. Certain of said textile fiber products were falsely and deceptively advertised in that respondents, in making disclosures or 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 in 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 467—-207—73——__18 Decision and Order 77 ETC, textile fiber products which were falsely and deceptively advertised in The Gadsden Times, a newspaper published in the city of Gadsden, State of Alabama, and having a wide circulation in Alabama and various other States of the United States, in that the true generic names of the fibers present in such products were not set forth. Par. 16. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of ‘similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised textile fiber products in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act in that -said textile fiber products were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations thereunder in the following respects: (a) Fiber trademarks were used in advertising textile fiber products without a full disclosure of the fiber content information re- _quived by the said Act and the Rules and Regulations thereunder in at least one instance in said advertisements, in violation of Rule -41(a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. (b) Fiber trademarks were used in advertising textile fiber products containing more than one fiber and such fiber trademarks did not appear in the required fiber content information in immediate proximity and conjunction with the generic names of the fibers to ‘which they related 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 a textile fiber product 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 to which it re- Jated in plainly legible and conspicuous type or lettering, in violation of Rule 41(c) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. Par. 17. The acts and practices of the respondents as set forth in Paragraphs Fifteen and Sixteen above, were, and are, in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, and now 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 respondents named in the caption hereof, and the respondents having been furnished thereafter with a ~ copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Textiles and Furs 177 Order proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents 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 respondents that the law has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and other provisions as required by the Commission’s Rules; and The Commission having thereafter considered the matter and having determined that it has reason to believe that the respondents have 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 public record for a period of thirty (80) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in § 2.34(b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1, Respondent Belk-Hudson Co., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Alabama with its office and principal place of business located at 501 Broad Street, Gadsden, Alabama. Respondent Yates C. Dellinger is an officer of said corporation. He formulates, directs and controls the policies, acts and practices. of the said corporate respondent and his address is the same as that of 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 Lt is ordered, That respondents Belk-Hudson Co., Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Yates C. Dellinger, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and respondents’ respresentatives, 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 Order TT RTC.

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 any fur product by:

1. Failing to affix a label to such fur product 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 a label under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

3. 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.

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

3. 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, public 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 BHBHUAWKMUvoUIN Wey SANUe) sue saae rere 177 Order subsections of Section 5(a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Falsely or deceptively identifies such fur product as to the name or designation of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product. 3. 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.” 4. 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, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored.

5. Represents, directly or by implication, that any price, whether accompanied or not by descriptive terminology is the respondents’ former price of such fur product when such price is in excess of the price at which such fur product has been sold or offered for sale in good faith by the respondents on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time in the recent regular course of business, or otherwise misrepresents the price at which any such fur product has been sold or offered for sale by respondents. 6. Falsely or deceptively represents that savings are afforded to the purchaser of any such fur product or misrepresents in any manner the amount of savings afforded to the purchaser of such fur product. .

%. Falsely or deceptively represents that the price of any such fur product is reduced.

8. Misrepresents directly or by implication through percentage savings claims that the price of any such fur product is reduced to afford the purchaser of such fur product the percentage of savings stated.

D. Failing to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which pricing claims and representations of the types described in subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, are based.

Jt is further ordered, That respondents Belk-Hudson Co., Inc., a corporation, and its officers, and Yates C. Dellinger, individually and as an officer of said corporation, and respondents’ representafives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or Order TT ETC.

other device, in connection with the introduction, delivery for introduction, sale, advertising or offering for sale, in commerce, or 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 or deceptively advertising any textile fiber product by: 1. Making any respresentation, by disclosure or by implication, as to the fiber content 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 Section 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 a textile fiber product need not be stated.

2. Using a fiber trademark in advertising such textile fiber product without a full disclosure of the required content information in at least one instance in said advertisement. 3. Using a fiber trademark in advertising such textile fiberproduct containing more than one fiber without such fiber trademark appearing on 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 such textile fiber product containing only one fiber without such fiber trademark appearing at least once in the said advertisement, in immediate: proximity and conjunction with the generic name of the fiber and in plainly legibile and conspicuous type or lettering. It ts further ordered, That respondents notify the Commission at least 30 days prior to any proposed change in the corporate respondent such as dissolution, assignment or sale resulting in the emergence of a successor corporation, the creation or dissolution of subsidiaries. J & L KESSLER, INU. aus 177 Complaint or any other change in the corporation which may affect. compliance obligations arising out of the order. © It is further ordered, That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions.

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.