the ripe tomato on the label merely indicated the source of the
contents of the cans and did not tend to deceive. United States
v. 154 Cases of Tomatoes___
An information alleging that packages of an article were misbranded in that the statements "butter" and "one pound net" were false and misleading in that they represented that the article was "butter," namely, a product which should contain not less than 80 per centum by weight of milk fat, and represented that each of such packages contained one pound net of the article, whereas in truth the article contained less than 80 per centum by weight of milk fat and the packages contained a less amount than one pound net of the article; and that the article was further misbranded in that it was labeled as stated so as to mislead and deceive the purchaser into the belief that it was butter as defined, and that each of such packages contained one pound net of the article, held sufficiently charged misbranding in view of section 8 of the act, and in view of act March 4, 1923, defining "butter" for the purpose of the Food and Drugs Act. United States v. Centralia Dairy Co. 1336 The labeling of canned apples and canned blackberries to indicate that the fruit was grown in Michigan, when it was grown in Arkansas, there being evidence that Michigan apples and blackberries were better than those grown in Arkansas, held, constituted misbranding. United States v. 100 Cases of Tepee Apples et al_____
A sirup, composed of 10 percent of maple sugar and 90 percent of white sugar, labeled “Gold Leaf Syrup", with a trade mark consisting of a gold leaf in the form of a maple leaf, and stalks projecting on each side apparently representing sugar cane, and bearing the words "Composed of Maple and White Sugar" distinctly, cannot be said to be misbranded within the meaning of the act because the proportion of white sugar in the sirup exceeded that of maple sugar. In re Wilson__
"Salad Oil" prima facie means olive oil, and, in the absence of evidence that the term has recently acquired a more general meaning to include other oils, its use without further explanation on packages of cotton seed oil constitutes misbranding. Brina v. United States__.
Ordinary Croton water drawn from the pipes in New York City. filtered and bottled after the addition of a small quantity of mineral salts and carbonic acid gas, is not "spring water", as the term is generally understood, and the labeling of the bottle as "Imperial Spring Water" was misleading and constituted misbranding within the meaning of the act, section 8. United States v. Morgan et al_-_
An article labeled "Orange Flavoring" is not misbranded merely because it is shown to contain no more than about 20 percent of orange extract. It must be shown that the words orange "flavoring" and orange "extract" have a trade meaning to the effect that such substances are identical in strength. United States v. Union Pacific Tea Co--
An information alleging that an article of food labeled as "Extract Terpeneless Lemon" was misbranded in that the article did not contain 0.2 percent of citral derived from lemon, but contained only 0.05 percent of such citral, and that the article therefore was not terpeneless lemon extract as recognized by the trade generally and by the standard of purity established by the Secretary of Agriculture by authority of act March 3, 1903, held, stated facts which sustained a count for misbranding under the Food and Drugs Act. United States v. Frank et al___.
A bottle containing wine produced in California and labeled "Extra Dry Champagne", without any other qualifying or descriptive words, tends to mislead and deceive and is misbranded under the provisions of the act. United States v. Schraubstadter et al____ A bottled wine produced in California and labeled "Champagne" without any other qualifying or descriptive words, is misbranded
under the act. Such a wine having substantially the same qual-
ities as the champagne manufactured in France and produced
substantially in the same way, although originating in California,
is not misbranded if it is labeled "California Champagne", or if
by some other device conspicuously displayed in connection with
the word champagne, purchasers are clearly advised that the
bottles do not contain a product of France. Id.
A bottled domestic wine, artificially carbonated, and labeled “Extra
Dry Champagne" and with a design and with words in French
calculated to induce a purchaser to believe he was buying a foreign
and not a domestic product, held misbranded. Schraubstadter
et al. v. United States_
An article described on the label as "Peroxide Cream", and con-
taining some peroxide, held not misbranded though the quantity of
peroxide contained in the article was so small as to be insignifi-
cant. United States v. American Druggists' Syndicate__
Alleged pure cider vinegar held misbranded where samples showed
only from 0.11 to 0.16 percent glycerin. United States v. 100 Bar-
rels of Vinegar___.
Where grape juice contained added cane sugar the label de-
scribing the same as "Pure unfermented grape juice" was mis-
leading and constituted misbranding. United States v. Mohn
Wine Co-----
Where there was no proof that the words "Hudson's Extract" had a well-known trade meaning, an imitation of vanilla marked "Hudson's Extract", without giving any indication of what the article was composed, constituted misbranding under the act. Hudson Manufacturing Co. v. United States---
In view of undisputed testimony that the term "patent flour" does not connote flour containing any fixed or maximum percentage of the wheat berry, and that it may differ with different kinds of wheat, a misbranding within the meaning of the act, section 8, cannot be predicated alone on the percentage in a flour so branded. Lexington Mill & Elevator Co. v. United States__.
Judgment affirmed, United States v. Lexington Mill & Elevator
A charge in a libel that flour was misbranded in that it was labeled as made of the first quality of hard wheat, whereas, in truth it was made in whole or in part of soft wheat, was not sustained by evidence that the flour was milled from No. 2 Turkey red wheat and was not of the first quality, and that no soft wheat entered into its composition. Id.
Wine consisting in whole or in part of a pomace wine held misbranded as "Ohio Claret Wine." United States v. 60 Barrels of Wine---
Where macaroni manufactured in the United States bore a label containing Italian words, including the name of a town in Italy where macaroni is extensively manufactured, and the general purchaser, looking at the label, would conclude that it represented an Italian product, the macaroni was misbranded within the meaning of the act, section 8, though the letters "Mfg. U. S. A." appeared in small type within less than an inch of space on a very narrow white margin on the lower edge of the label. United States v. 267 Boxes of Macaroni__.
In a prosecution for misbranding so-called macaroons, under the act, section 8, providing that an article of food is misbranded if it be an imitation of or offered for sale under the name of another article, or if the package containing it, or its label, shall bear any statement regarding the article or the ingredients or substances contained therein which shall be false or misleading in any particular, if the jury found that a macaroon, as commonly understood, consists of ground cocoanut, sugar, and the white of eggs, then defendant's product containing glucose in addition, and branded "Macaroons", was misbranded within the meaning of the act. F. B. Washburn & Co. v. United States___
An article labeled "Special Lemon. Lemon Terpene and Citral",
which was not derived from lemon, but was a mixture containing
alcohol and citral derived from lemon grass, and an imitation of
lemon oil, held not misbranded. Weeks v. United States____
An article composed of alcohol and citral derived from lemon grass
and an imitation of lemon oil, and labeled "Special Lemon", and
represented by the seller's agent to the buyer as pure lemon oil,
was misbranded within the act, section 8, defining misbranding as
offering an article for sale under the distinctive name of another
article, though no label describing it as such other article was
affixed to it. Id.
Affirmed, Weeks v. United States__
An information alleging misbranding of defendant's food product in that its designation on the label, "Cordial Non-Alcoholic Rock & Rey", was false and misleading in representing the article to be (a) a compound of rock candy and rye whisky, (b) a cordial, and (c) a cordial containing rock candy and rye whisky, when it was syrup containing sugar, commercial glucose, and artificial coloring matter, held, failed to charge misbranding, on the ground that such designation was an arbitrary and fanciful one, calculated to put the purchaser of the article upon inquiry as to its ingredients, and that the word "non-alcoholic" indicated that the product did not contain whisky and that it was not a cordial (the essential ingredient of which is alcohol). United States v. Good
On a finding that there is a distinct kind of gin known as "London
Dry Gin" which need not necessarily be made in London, held
that the use of such name on the label of such particular kind of
gin not made in London did not constitute misbranding.
States v. 36 Bottles of London Dry Gin__--
Judgment reversed, United States v. 36 Bottles of London Dry
Gin
An article of domestic manufacture designated on the label as "Hol-
land" gin, with the statement "Distilled by Baird Daniels Co.,
Warehouse Point, Conn.", held not misbranded as purporting to be
a foreign product, since the term "Holland" in connection with the
word gin is a geographical name which has become generic by
usage, and represents a style, type, or brand of gin, and the label
stated the State where the article was manufactured. United
States v. Five Cases of Hurdle Brand Holland Gin----
Natural spring water taken from Buffalo Lithia Springs in Mecklen-
burg County, Va., and sold in bottles under the label "Buffalo
Lithia Water-Springs No. 2, Buffalo Lithia Springs Water-
Nature's Materia Medica, Buffalo Lithia Water Company, Buffalo
Lithia Springs, Va.", held misbranded within the meaning of the
act, section 8, first general paragraph, in that the water was not
a lithia water and did not contain a sufficient amount of lithium
to entitle it to be called lithia water. United States v. Seven
Cases of Buffalo Lithia Water---.
Affirmed, Goode v. United States_.
Flour held misbranded in that it was offered for sale under the
distinctive name of another article, to wit, "High Patent Flour",
when it was a flour inferior to "Patent Flour" and was a mixed
flour consisting of "Straight Flour" mixed with "Clear Flour";
and misbranded in that it was labeled and branded so as to de-
ceive and mislead the purchaser, that is to say, it was described
on the labels as "High Patent", when it was not "Patent Flour",
but was a mixture of straight flour made from a mixture of hard
and soft new winter wheat, and clear old wheat flour. United
States v. 420 Sacks of Flour__
Flour held misbranded in that it was labeled as "Patent" flour,
when in fact it was not patent flour but was flour inferior to
patent flour, and was sold under the distinctive name of another
article and labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser; and
further misbranded in that the labels contained the statement,
MISBRANDING
"This flour is made of first quality hard wheat", when in fact
it was not made from first quality hard wheat, but was made in
whole or in part from wheat inferior to first grade winter wheat,
and was sold under the distincitve name of another article.
United States v. 625 Sacks of Flour_----
Reversed, Lexington Mill and Elevator Co. v. United States__
Judgment C. C. A. affirmed, United States v. Lexington Mill and
Elevator Co-----
Under a regulation adopted under the act, that "The use of a geo-
graphical name in connection with a food or drug product will not
be deemed misbranding, when by reason of long usage it has come
to represent a generic term, and is used to indicate a style, type,
or brand, but in such cases the state or territory where any such
article is manufactured or produced shall be stated upon the prin-
cipal label", coffee shipped from the port of Aden, Arabia, whether
produced in Arabia or Abyssinia, may properly be labeled
"Mocha", but the label must state in which of the two countries
it was produced. United States v. Thomson & Taylor Spice Co---
The H. Co., at Kansas City, Mo., contracted to sell to the W. Co., at
Fort Worth, Tex., a quantity of No. 2 red wheat, according to
Missouri official state grades, and ordered the operator of a public
elevator where it stored its grain to ship to the W. Co. in ful-
fillment of this contract No. 2 red wheat. The operator loaded
After the wheat was
and sent to the W. Co. a car of wheat.
loaded, an official inspector of the State of Missouri at Kansas
City inspected, adjudged, and certified this wheat to be No. 2
red wheat. An invoice of it was forwarded to the W. Co., show-
ing that it was shipped under the contract and subject to Kansas
City weights and grades. The wheat arrived in Texas without
change. There, on inspection by a Texas inspector, a Federal
inspector, and other witnesses, it was found to be wheat of an-
other and less valuable grade. None of the officers or employees
of the H. Co. had any knowledge of this fact, or anything to do
with the grading or shipping, except to order the operator of the
elevator to ship No. 2 red wheat. Held, the H. Co. was not guilty
of misbranding within the meaning of section 8 of the act. Hall-
Baker Grain Co. v. United States---
Reversing United States v. Hall-Baker Grain Co----
A food product labeled "Grenadine Syrup", composed of sugar, citric
and tartaric acid, and juices of certain fruits, and in the manu-
facture of which no pomegranates were used, held not misbranded
as labeled or branded so as to deceive or mislead the purchaser,
since the word "grenadine" in its common acceptance does not
mean a sirup made from pomegranates, but the term "grenadine
syrup" is used in commerce to designate, not a sirup so made, but
a sirup possessing a certain characteristic flavor and color, and a
purchaser of sirup so labeled was not entitled to expect to receive
a sirup actually made from pomegranates. United States v. 30
Cases Purporting to be Grenadine Syrup_-.
Cakes labeled "Macaroons" held misbranded in that they were la-
beled so as to deceive or mislead the purchaser, because they were
not made of cocoanut, but of almonds, and because they contained
glucose, when macaroons mean cakes made not of cocoanut, but of
almonds, and containing sugar and not any glucose. United States
v. F. B. Washburn & Co.----
Affirmed, F. B. Washburn & Co. v. United States----
A liquid made by distilling wood, for curing meats, held not mis-
branded by the label "Wright's Condensed Smoke. A Liquid
Smoke", such name being a fanciful or descriptive one referring to
the article and not tending to deceive or mislead the public into
the belief that the article was actually smoke in condensed, liquid
form. United States v. Wright et al----
Hog feed was misbranded under the act where the labels upon the
bags contained false and misleading statements as to the percent-
ages of its ingredients. United States v. 426 Bags of Economy
Special Hog Feed----
A coal-tar color labeled "Warranted. Complies with all require-
ments", containing salt in a percentage greater than the maximum
prescribed for such coloring materials by the Department of Agri-
culture, held misbranded, where it appeared that it was known or
understood in the trade that the "requirements" referred to the re-
quirements of the department, and that the particular article was
being purchased according to such requirements. United States v.
One Pound Can Coal-Tar Color---.
Carbonated apple juice with capsicum added, contained in bottles
labeled "Sparkling White Seal" and resembling in form and dress
a distinctive bottle used for champagne sold and well-known under
the same name, held misbranded within the meaning of the act,
section 8, declaring an article of food misbranded if the package
or its label bear any false or misleading statement, design, or de-
vice regarding the article. United States v. 9 Cases of Sparkling
White Seal___
Affirmed, Duffy-Mott Co. v. United States---
Where an artificial or intentional mixture of oats contained 23
percent of foreign material, a percentage of which was wild oats,
which had been intentionally added, branding the mixture "Sample
grade star oats" was a misbranding, subjecting it to forfeiture
under the Food and Drugs Act, even assuming that the wild oat
seed is a food, and that such brand was not deceptive, and not,
withstanding that, under the regulations authorized by the Grain
Standards Act, a natural mixture containing as high as 25 per-
cent of foreign material could have been branded "Sample grade
oats", and that the oats were graded by an authorized inspector as
sample oats. United States v. 154 Sacks of Oats--
Claimant manufactured vinegar from sound, mature apples from
which 80 percent of the water had been evaporated and an equal
amount of pure water added before pressing. The liquid obtained
by the pressing was similar in chemical test to apple cider made
from fresh apples, and the product resulting after fermentation
was similar in taste, appearance, and composition to vinegar made
from unevaporated apples. Vinegar so made had been exten-
sively sold in the market for many years. Held that such vinegar
labeled and sold as "Apple Cider Vinegar Made from Selected
Apples", was misbranded in that the label was false and mislead-
ing, and in that the vinegar was offered for sale under the dis-
tinctive name of another article. United States v. 95 Barrels,
More or Less, Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar___
Reversed, Ninety-Five Barrels, More or Less, Apple Cider Vine-
gar v. United States---
Judgment C. C. A. reversed, United States v. 95 Barrels, More or
Less, Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar__.
Claimant manufactured vinegar from sound and mature apples from
which, for the purpose of preservation, 80 percent of the water had
been evaporated and an equal amount of pure water added before
pressing. The liquid obtained by the pressing was identical in
taste, substance, and chemical test with cider pressed from unevap-
orated apples. If any constituent element of the apples was
removed by the evaporating process, it was so small that its
absence was not shown by chemical tests. Such vinegar was
labeled and sold as "Apple Cider Vinegar." Held, that such name
was not a misbranding. Ninety-Five Barrels, More or Less, Apple
Cider Vinegar v. United States.
Reversing United States v. 95 Barrels, More or Less, Alleged
Apple Cider Vinegar....
Judgment C. C. A. reversed, United States v. 95 Barrels, More or
Less, Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar__
Vinegar made from dried apples by adding water equivalent to that
removed in the drying, and fermenting the resulting solution, even
though it be similar to vinegar produced directly from fresh apple
cider and equally wholesome, is not the same thing; and a label
describing it as "Apple Cider Vinegar Made from Selected Apples"
|