423. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics.     U. S. v. 3%2 Gross of Pro
phylactics (and 2 other seizure actions against prophylactics). Default
decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 2988, 3271, 3533.
Sample Nos. 14997-E, 20147-E, 46322-E.)
This product was not only defective because of the presence of holes, but its
label failed to bear certain information required by the law as indicated here-
inafter.
On September 16, October 23, and December 18, 1940, the United States attor-
neys for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the Middle District of Georgia
filed libels against 3& gross of prophylactics at Williamsport, Pa.; 35 gross at
Scranton, Pa.; and 3rV gross at Dixie, Ga., alleging that the article had been
shipped in interstate commerce within the period from August 22 to on or about
October 10,1940, by the Penn Jersey Drug Co. from Newark, N. J.; and charging
that it was adulterated and misbranded. A portion of the article was labeled in
part: "Sanytex." The remainder was labeled in part: "Saf-T-Skin * * *
Gotham Rubber Co. Chicago New York."
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell below that
which it purported or was represented to possess. "It was alleged to be mis-
branded in that the following statements appearing on the labeling were false
and misleading: (Sanytex) "Disease Preventative," "Select Quality," "Unlimited
Guarantee Against Deterioration," and "For Prevention of Disease"; (Saf-T-Skin) f
"The Dependable Prophylactic Saf-T-Skin * * * to prevent disease Guar- ^
anteed Five Years." The Sanytex brand was alleged to be misbranded further
in that its label did not bear the name and address of the manufacturer, packer,
or distributor. The Saf-T-Skin brand was alleged to be misbranded further in
that its label did not bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents.
On November 2 and 18, 1940, and February 20, 1941, no claimant having ap-
peared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered
destroyed.