Coro, Inc

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

In the Marrer or CORO, INC.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Docket C-1783. Complaint, Aug. 18, 1970—Decision, Aug. 18, 1970 Consent order requiring a New York City distributor of costume jewelry, including earrings, to cease using the term “Karatclad” or any other word or words implying that the article referred to has a gold plated surface.

Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that Coro, Inc., a corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated the provisions of said 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: :

Paracrary 1. Respondent Coro, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its principal office and place of business located at 47 West 34th Street in the city of New York, State of New York.

CORO, INC. 1159 1158: Complaint Par. 2. Respondent is now, and for some time last past has been, engaged in the advertising, offering for sale, sale and distribution of costume jewelry, including earrings, and other products to distributors, retailers and catalog houses for resale to the public. Par. 8. In the course and conduct of its business as aforesaid, respondent now causes, and for some time last past has caused, its said products, when sold, to be shipped from its place of business in the State of New York to purchasers thereof in various other States of the United States and maintains, and at all times mentioned herein has maintained, a substantial course of trade in said products in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Par. 4. In the course and conduct of its business as aforesaid, and for the purpose of inducing the purchase of its jewelry, and particularly earrings, respondent, in its advertising has used the unqualified term “IXaratclad” to describe the gold content of its jewelry. Par. 5. By means of the aforesaid term, respondent represented, directly or by implication, that its products, and particularly its earrings, are plated with a substantial surface of gold alloy by a mechanical bonding process.

Par. 6. In fact, respondent’s products are not plated with gold or gold alloy applied by a mechanical bonding process but, on the contrary, there is a coating of gold or gold alloy placed thereon by electrolysis.

Therefore, the use of the term “Karatclad,” as set forth in Para- . graph Four hereof, is, and was, false, misleading and deceptive. Par. 7. In the course and conduct of its aforesaid business, and at all times mentioned herein, respondent has been, and now is, in substantial competition, in commerce, with corporations, firms and individuals in the sale of costume jewelry of the same general kind and nature as that sold by respondent.

Par. 8. The use by respondent of the aforesaid false, misleading and deceptive statements, representations and practices has had, and now has, the capacity and tendency to mislead members of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said statements and representations were and are true and into the purchase of substantial quantities of respondent’s products by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief.

Par. 9. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent, as herein alleged were and are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondent’s competitors and constituted, and now constitute, unfair methods of competition in commerce, and unfair and deceptive Decision and Order VT FTC.

acts and practices in commerce in violation of Section 5 of 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 Deceptive Practices proposed 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 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 provisions as required by the Commission’s Rules; and The Commission having considered the agreement and having accepted same, and the agreement containing consent order having thereupon been placed on the public record “for a period of thirty (30) days, and having duly considered the comments filed thereafter pursuant to § 2.34 (b) of its Rules now, in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in such Rule, the Commission hereby issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1, Respondent Coro, Inc., is a corporation organizated, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State. of New York, with its office and principal place of business located at, iM West 34th Street, city of New York, State of New York. - 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.

ORDER It is ordered, That respondent, Coro, Inc., a corporation, and its officers, agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the advertising, offering for sale, sale or distribution of costume jewelry or any either product in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: CORO, INC. 1161 1158 Order 1. Using the term “Karatclad” or any other word ce words implying that the article referred to has a surface plating of gold or gold alloy applied by a mechanical bonding process to describe any jewelry product which is “gold electroplated” or “heavy gold electroplated” unless said designation is accompanied by either the term “gold electroplated” or “heavy gold electroplated,” whichever is applicable; or misrepresenting in any manner, the content or manner of application of any gold or gold alloy plating, covering, or coating on the surface of any jewelry profuct or part thereof.

lt is further ordered, That the respondent corporation shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions. It ts further ordered, That respondent notify the Commission at least 80 days prior to any proposed change such as dissolution, assignment or sale resulting in the emergence of a successor corporation, the creation or dissolution of subsidiaries or any other change in the corporation which may affect compliance obligations arising out of the order.

It is further ordered, That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with this order.