mum of 1/20th of the weight of the metal in the entire article, the terms "Gold Plate," "Gold Plated," "Rolled Gold Plate," and "Gold Overlay" may be used when the karat fineness designation is immediately preceded by a fraction which accurately discloses the portion of the weight of the metal in the entire article accounted for by the plating, and when such fraction is of equal conspicuousness as the term used (as, for example, "1/40 12 Kt. Rolled Gold Plate," and "1/40 12 Kt. R. G. P.”).

on

(3) An industry product or part thereof, all significant surfaces which there has been affixed by an electrolytic process a coating or plating of gold, or of a gold alloy of not less than 10 karat fineness, the minimum thickness throughout of which is equivalent to 7/1,000,000ths of an inch of fine gold, may be marked or described as "Gold Electroplate" or "Gold Electroplated." When the coating or plating meets the minimum fineness, but not the minimum thickness, above specified, the marking or description may be "Gold Flashed" or "Gold Washed," and when of the minimum fineness above specified and of a minimum thickness throughout which is equivalent to 100/1,000,000ths of an inch of fine gold, the marking or description may be “Heavy Gold Electroplate" or "Heavy Gold Electroplated." When coatings or platings qualify for the term "Gold Electroplate" (or "Gold Electroplated"), or the term "Heavy Gold Electroplate" (or "Heavy Gold Electroplated"), and have been applied by use of a special kind of an electrolytic process, the designation for which the coating or plating is qualified may be accompanied by an identification of the process used, as for example, "Gold Electroplated (X Process)"; "Heavy Gold Electroplated (Y Process)."

(d) The requirements of this section relating to markings and descriptions of industry products and parts thereof are subject to the tolerances applicable thereto under the National Stamping Act (15 U.S. Code, sections 294, et seq.) and to the exemptions applicable thereto under section 10 of Commercial Standard CS 67-38, relating to marking articles made of karat gold, and under section 12(a) of Commercial Standard CS 47-34 (including supplement thereof effective February 25, 1939), relating to marking of gold filled and rolled gold plate articles other than watch cases.

(e) The exemption provisions of Commercial Standard CS 67-38, mentioned in paragraph (d) of this section, are as follows:

10. Exemptions recognized in the jewelry trade and not to be considered in any assay for quality include springs, posts, and separable backs of lapel buttons, posts, and nuts for attaching interchangeable ornaments, and wire pegs or rivets used for applying mountings and other ornaments, which mountings or ornaments shall be of the quality marked.

(f) The exemption provisions of Commercial Standard CS 47-34, mentioned in paragraph (d) of this section, are as follows:

12(a). Exemptions recognized in the jewelry trade and not to be considered in any assay for quality include joints, catches, screws, pin stems, pins of scarf pins, hat pins, etc., field pieces and bezels for lockets, posts and separable backs of lapel buttons, springs, and metallic parts completely and permanently encased in a nonmetallic covering. Field pieces of lockets are those inner portions used as frames between the inside edges of the locket and the spaces for holding pictures. Bezels are the separable inner metal rings used to hold the pictures in place. [22 F.R. 4568, June 28, 1957, as amended at 24 F.R. 9581, Dec. 1, 1959]

§ 23.23 Misrepresentation as to silver

content.

(a) It is an unfair trade practice to misrepresent in any way the silver content or fineness of silver content of any industry product, or to represent such product as having a silver content, plating, electroplating, or coating, when such is not the fact.*

'The requirements of this section relating to markings and descriptions of industry products and parts thereof are subject to the tolerances applicable thereto under the National Stamping Act (15 U.S. Code, section 294, et seq.) and to the exemptions applicable thereto under section 8 of Commercial Standard CS 118-44 (Marking of Jewelry and Novelties of Silver), and section 8(a) of Commercial Standard CS 51-85 (Marking Articles Made of Silver in Combination with Gold).

The exemption provisions of Commercial Standard CS 118-44, above mentioned, are as follows:

8. Exemptions: The only exemptions recognized and not to be included in any assay for quality include screws, rivets, springs, spring pins for wrist watch straps; posts and separable backs of lapel buttons; wire pegs, posts and nuts used for applying mountings or other ornaments, which mountings or ornaments shall be of the quality marked;

(b) It is an unfair trade practice to mark, describe, or otherwise represent, any industry product, or part thereof, as "silver," "solid silver," "Sterling," or "Sterling Silver," unless it is at least 925/1,000ths pure silver.

(c) It is an unfair trade practice to mark, describe, or otherwise represent, any industry product, or part thereof, as "coin" or "coin silver," unless it is at least 900/1,000ths pure silver.

(d) It is an unfair trade practice to apply the term "Sterling" or "coin," either alone or in conjunction with any other word or words, in any manner to a silver-plated article or to the plating thereon.

(e) It is an unfair trade practice to mark, describe, or otherwise represent, any industry product, or part thereof, as being plated or coated with silver, unless all significant surfaces of the product or part contain a plating or coating of silver which is of substantial thickness.

NOTE: See also § 23.25 entitled "Additional requirements relating to quality marks."

[22 F.R. 4568, June 28, 1957, as amended at 24 F.R. 9581, Dec. 1, 1959]

99

§ 23.24 Misuse of words "platinum,' "iridium," “palladium,” "ruthenium," "rhodium," and "osmium."

It is an unfair trade practice to use the words "platinum," "iridium," "palladium," "ruthenium," "rhodium," or "osmium," or any abbreviations thereof, as a marking on, or as descriptive of, any industry product or part thereof, under any circumstance or condition having the capacity and tendency or effect of deceiving purchasers or prospective purchasers as to the true composition of such product or part.

pin stems of badges, brooches, emblem pins, hat pins, and scarf pins; levers for belt buckles; and blades and skeletons of pocket knives.

The exemption provisions of Commercial Standard CS 51-35, above mentioned, are as follows:

8(a). Unless otherwise required by the National Stamping Act, exemptions recognized in the jewelry trade and not to be considered in any assay for quality include Joints, catches, screws, pin stems, pins of scarf pins, hat pins, etc., posts and separable backs of lapel buttons, springs, and metallic parts completely and permanently encased in a nonmetallic covering.

As used in this section, the term "quality mark" means any letter, figure, numeral, symbol, sign, word, or term, or any combination thereof, which has been stamped, embossed, inscribed, or otherwise placed, on any industry product and which indicates or suggests that any such product is composed throughout of any precious metal or any alloy thereof or has a surface or surfaces on which there has been plated or deposited any precious metal or alloy thereof. Included are the words "gold," "karat," "carat," "silver," "sterling," "platinum," "iridium," "palladium," "ruthenium," "rhodium," or "osmium," or any abbreviation thereof, whether used alone or in conjunction with the word "filled," "plated," overlay," "electroplated," or any abbreviation thereof. Requirements of this section are additional to those provided for in §§ 23.22, 23.23, and 23.24.

(a) Deception as to applicability of marks. (1) It is an unfair trade practice to sell, offer for sale, or distribute any industry product on which a quality mark appears when by reason of the location of such mark, the failure to conjunctively identify the part or portion of the product to which same is applicable (or part or portion to which same is inapplicable), or otherwise, such mark has the capacity and tendency or effect of deceiving purchasers or prospective purchasers as to the metallic composition of the product or any part thereof.

(2) When a quality mark has proper application but to one or more parts of an industry product and not to another part or parts thereof which are of similar surface appearance, each quality mark should be closely accompanied by an identification of the part or parts to which the mark is applicable.

(b) Deception by reason of difference in the size of letters or words in a marking or markings. It is an unfair trade practice to sell, offer for sale, or dis

tribute any industry product on which there appears a quality mark in which words or letters appear in greater size than other words or letters of the marking, or when different markings placed on the product have different applications and are in different sizes, when any such marking has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving purchasers or prospective purchasers of the product as to the metallic composition of such product or any part thereof. (An example of improper marking subject to the inhibitions of this paragraph would be the marking of a gold electroplated product with the word "electroplate" in small type and the word "gold" in larger type, with the result that purchasers and prospective purchasers of the product would observe the word "gold" of the marking and unlikely observe the word "electroplate".)

NOTE: Legibility of markings.

Quality

markings on industry products should be of sufficient size type as to be legible to persons of normal vision, and be so placed as likely to be observed by purchasers or prospective purchasers thereof. When such size marking cannot be achieved without injury to the appearance of the article, a tag or label on which the marking appears in type which is readable by persons of normal vision should be attached to the product and remain thereon until consumer purchase.

NOTE: Disclosure of identity of manufacturers, processors, or distributors. It is the consensus of the members of this industry that all quality markings on industry products should be accompanied by the name, or other adequate identification, of the manufacturer, processor, or distributor responsible for such marking. Quality markings include those in which the words or terms "gold," “karat," "silver," "platinum" (or platinum related metals), or their abbreviations, are included, either separately or as suffixes, prefixes, or syllables.)

§ 23.26 Misuse of the word "diamond.”

(a) In the sale, offering for sale, or distribution of industry products, it is an unfair trade practice for any industry member to use the unqualified word "diamond" as descriptive of, or as an identification for, any object or product not meeting the requirements specified in the definitions of diamond hereinabove set forth, or which, though meeting such requirements, has not been symmetrically fashioned with at least seventeen (17) polished facets.

(b) The foregoing provisions of this section have application to the unqualified use of the word "diamond." They are not to be construed as inhibiting:

(1) The use of the words "rough diamond" as descriptive of, or as a designation for, uncut or unfaceted objects or products meeting the requirements specified in the mentioned definition of diamond; or

(2) The use of the word “diamond” as descriptive of, or as a designation for, objects or products meeting the requirements of said definition of diamond but which have not been symmetrically fashioned with at least seventeen (17) polished facets when in immediate conjunction with the word "diamond” there is either a disclosure of the number of facets and shape of the diamond or the name of a type of diamond which denotes shape and which usually has less than seventeen (17) facets (e. g., "rose diamond").

NOTE: Additional requirements relating to imitation and synthetic diamond representations and misuse of words "reproduction," "replica," "gem," "real," "genuine," "natural," etc., are set forth in §§ 23.37, 23.88, and 23.39.

§ 23.27 Misuse of word "perfect,” etc.

(a) It is an unfair trade practice to use the word "perfect," or any other word, expression, or representation of similar import, as descriptive of any diamond which discloses flaws, cracks, carbon spots, clouds, or other blemishes or imperfections of any sort when examined in normal daylight, or its equivalent, by a trained eye under a ten-power, corrected diamond eye loupe or other equal magnifier.

NOTE: The use, with respect to a stone which is not perfect, of any phrase (such as "commercially perfect") containing the word "perfect" or "perfectly" is regarded as misleading and in violation of this section.

Paragraph (a) of this section shall not be construed as approving the use of the word "perfect," or any word or representation of like import, as descriptive of any diamond that is of inferior color or make.

Nothing in this section is to be construed as inhibiting the use of the word "flawless" as descriptive of a diamond which meets the requirements for "perfect" set forth in paragraph (a) of this section.

(b) It is an unfair trade practice, in connection with the offering of any ring or rings or other articles of jewelry having a perfect center stone or stones, and side or supplementary stones which are not of such quality, to use the word "perfect" without clearly disclosing that such description applies only to the center stone or center stones.

§ 23.28 Misuse of term "blue white."

It is an unfair trade practice to use the term "blue white," or any other term, expression, or representation of similar import, as descriptive of any diamond which under normal, north daylight or its equivalent, shows any color or any trace of any color other than blue or bluish.

NOTE: For additional requirements respecting artificially colored diamonds, see the note immediately following § 23.36.

§ 23.29 Misuse of the term "properly cut," etc.

It is an unfair trade practice to use the terms, "properly cut," "proper cut," "modern cut," well made," or expressions of similar import, to describe any diamond that is lopsided, or so thick or so thin in depth as materially to detract from the brilliance of the stone.

NOTE: This section prohibits the commonly called "fisheye" or "old mine" stone from being offered as "properly cut," "modern cut," etc.

§ 23.30

Misuse of the words "brilliant" and "full cut."

It is an unfair trade practice to use the unqualified expressions "brilliant," "brilliant cut," or "full cut" to describe, identify, or refer to any diamond except a round diamond which has at least thirty-two facets plus the table above the girdle and at least twenty-four facets below.

NOTE: Such terms should not be applied to single or rose-cut diamonds, either with or without qualification. They may be applied to emerald- (rectangular) cut, pearshaped, heart-shaped, oval-shaped, and marquise- (pointed oval) cut diamonds meeting the above-stated facet requirements when, in immediate conjunction with the term used, disclosure is made of the fact that the diamond is of such form.

§ 23.32 Misrepresentation of weight, "total weight.”

(a) It is an unfair trade practice to misrepresent the weight of any diamond or to deceive purchasers or prospective purchasers as to the weight of any diamond.

NOTE: The standard unit for designation of · the weight of a diamond is the carat, which is equivalent to two hundred miligrams (% gram). While advertisements may state the range of weights of a group of products, all weight representations regarding individual products shall be subject to a 1/200th of a carat (one-half "point") tolerance.

(b) It is an unfair trade practice to state or otherwise represent the weight of all diamonds contained in a ring or other article of jewelry unless such weight figure is accompanied with equal conspicuity by the words "total weight," or words of similar import, so as to indicate clearly that the weight shown is that of all stones in the article and not that of the center or largest stone.

§ 23.33 Misuse of word "pearl.”

(a) It is an unfair trade practice to use the unqualified word "pearl," or any other word or phrase of like meaning or connotation, to describe, identify, or refer to any object or product which is not in fact a pearl as defined hereinabove.

(b) It is an unfair trade practice to use the word "pearl" to describe, identify, or refer to a cultured pearl unless it is immediately preceded, with equal conspicuity, by the word "cultured" or "cultivated," or by some other word or phrase of like meaning and connotation, so as to indicate definitely and clearly that the product is not a pearl.

(c) It is an unfair trade practice to use the word "pearl" to describe, identify, or refer to an imitation pearl unless it is immediately preceded, with equal conspicuity, by the word "imitation" or "simulated," or by some other word or phrase of like meaning and connotation, so as to indicate definitely and clearly that the product is not a pearl.

NOTE: The placing of an asterisk next to the word "pearl," which asterisk makes reference to a footnote explanation of the fact that the product is an imitation or cultured pearl, is not regarded as compliance with the requirements of this section.

§ 23.34 Misuse of terms "cultured pearl,” “cultivated pearl,” “seed pearl," "Oriental pearl,” “Oriental,” “natura,” and “kultured.”

(a) It is an unfair trade practice to use the term "cultured pearl," "cultivated pearl," or any other word, term, or phrase of like meaning or connotation, to describe, identify, or refer to any imitation pearl.

(b) It is an unfair trade practice to use the term "seed pearl," or any word, term, or phrase of like meaning or connotation, to describe, identify, or refer to any cultured pearl or imitation pearl.

(c) It is an unfair trade practice to use the term "Oriental pearl," or any word, term, or phrase of like meaning or connotation, to describe, identify, or refer to any product of the industry other than a pearl taken from a salt water mollusk and of the distinctive appearance and type of pearls obtained from mollusks inhabiting the Persian Gulf and recognized in the jewelry trade as Oriental pearls.

(d) It is an unfair trade practice to use the word "Oriental" to describe, identify, or refer to any cultured or imitation pearl.

(e) It is an unfair trade practice to use the word “natura,” or any word, term, or phrase of like meaning or connotation, to describe, identify, or refer to a cultured or imitation pearl.

(f) It is an unfair trade practice to use the word "kultured," or any word, term, or phrase of like meaning or connotation, to describe, identify, or refer to an imitation pearl.

§ 23.35 Misrepresentation as to cultured pearls.

It is an unfair trade practice, in connection with the distribution, sale, or offering for sale of industry products, to make, publish, or disseminate, or cause to be made, published, or disseminated, any false, misleading, or deceptive statement, representation, or illustration concerning the matter in which cultured pearls are produced, the size of the nucleus artificially inserted in the oyster and included in cultured pearls, the length of time that such products remained in the oyster, the thickness of the nacre coating, the value and quality of cultured pearls as compared with the value and quality of pearls and imitation pearls or concerning any other material matter

relating to the formation, structure, properties, characteristics, and qualities of cultured pearls.

NOTE: Additional requirements relating to misuse of the words "real," "genuine," "natural," "reproduction," "replica," "synthetic," "gems,” etc., are set forth in §§ 23.38 and 23.39.

§ 23.36 Deception as to precious and semi-precious stones.

It is an unfair trade practice, in connection with the offering for sale, sale, or distribution of precious or semi-precious gem stones, to use or cause or promote the use of any trade promotional literature, advertising matter, mark, brand, label, trade name, picture, design or device, or other type of oral or written representation, however disseminated or published, which has the capacity and tendency of effect of misleading or deceiving the purchasing or consuming public in any other material respect.

NOTE: One of the practices to be considered as inhibited by this section is as follows: The sale, or offering for sale, of any diamond or other natural precious or semi-precious stone which has been artificially colored or tinted by coating, irradiating, or heating, or by use of nuclear bombardment, or by any other means, without disclosure of the fact that such natural stone is colored, and disclosure that such artificial coloring or tinting is not permanent if such is the fact.

§ 23.37 Misuse of words "ruby," "sapphire," "emerald,” "topaz,"

"stone," "birthstone,” etc.

(a) It is an unfair trade practice to use the unqualified words "ruby," "sapphire," "emerald," "topaz," or the name of any other precious or semi-precious stone, as descriptive of any product which is not in fact a natural stone of the type described.

(b) It is an unfair trade practice to use the words "ruby," "sapphire," "emerald," "stone," "birthstone," or the name of any other precious or semiprecious stone, as descriptive of a synthetic stone or an imitation or simulated stone unless such word or name is immediately preceded, with equal conspicuity, by the word "synthetic," or by the word "imitation" or "simulated," whichever is applicable, or by some other word or phrase of like meaning, so as clearly to disclose the nature of such product and the fact that it is not a natural stone.