540. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. V. 8. v. 41 Gross of
Prophylactics (and 21 other seizure actions against prophylactics). De-
fault decrees of condemnation and destruction. (F. D. C. Nos. 8322, 8333,
3353, 3367, 3369, 3386, 3387. 3388, 6605, 5755, 5.771, 5798, 5799, 5813, 5848, 5881
to 5884 incl., 5894, 5908, 7080. Sample Nos. 5557-E, 5558-E, 10434-E to 10^37-B,
incl., 19662-E, 34740-E, 36868-B, 36369-E. 39501-E, 40674-E, 42958-E, 46750-B,
48610-E to 48621-E, Incl., 50039-E, 50041-E, 51583-E. 51587-E, 51993-E,
51994-E, 62561-E, 62565-E, 74123-E, 74124-E. 74397-E, 74398-E, 74399-E.)
Samples of this product were found to be defective because of the presence of
holes.
Between November 4, 1940, and March 20, 1942, the United States attorneys
for the Southern District of New York, District of Columbia, Eastern District
of Missouri, Western District of New York, District of Rhode Island, Western
District of Pennsylvania, Northern District of Georgia, Southern District of
Ohio, District of Massachusetts, Northern District of Illinois, District of Puerto
Rico, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania filed libels against 545? gross
of prophylactics at New York, N. Y.; 80? gross at Washington, D. C.; 114 gross
at St. Louis, Mo.; 84 gross at Buffalo, N. Y.; 195 gross at Providence, R. I.; 49
gross at Pittsburgh, Pa.; 487? gross at Atlanta, Ga.; 123? gross at Cincinnati,
Ohio; 98 gross at Boston, Mass.; 48 gross at Fall River, Mass.; 98? gross at
Chicago, 111.; 11 gross at San Juan, P. R., and 20 gross at Philadelphia, Pa.,
alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce by the Allied
Latex Corporation from East Newark, N. J., within the period from on or about
October 5, 1940, to on or about February 18, 1942; and charging that it was
adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled variously in part: "Prophy-
lactic," "Smithies," "Thin-Tex," "Gems," "Liquid Latex," "Diana," "Seal-Test,"
"Dr. Robinson Rx 333," or "Kleenette."
The product in all lots was alleged to be adulterated in that its quality fell
below that which it was represented to possess.
Portions of the product were alleged to be misbranded in that representations
in the labeling that it was a prophylactic, would afford protection against disease,
and was scientifically tested, were false and misleading.
Within the period from January 9, 1940, to May 1, 1942, no claimants having
appeared, judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered
destroyed.