NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2405.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
MISBRANDING OF GIN; MISBRANDING OF BENEDITTINA; MISBRAND- 
ING  OF  FERNET-EXTRA.
At a stated term of the District Court of the United States for the 
Northern District of California, begun and held at the city of San 
Francisco on the first Monday in March, 1912, the grand jurors of 
the United States within and for said district, acting upon a report 
by the Secretary of Agriculture, returned an indictment against 
Bertin & Lepori, a corporation, San Francisco, Cal., alleging ship- 
ment by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on 
August 2,1911, from the State of California into the State of Nevada—
(1) Of a quantity of so-called Bordon & Co.'s dry gin which was 
misbranded. The product was labeled: "Bordon & Co's Dry Gin 
London Style. The original contents of this package guaranteed 
under the National 'Pure Food Law, June 30, 1906, by Bertin & 
Lepori, Inc."
Misbranding of the product was charged in the indictment for the 
reason that the labels and the words and impressions thereon were 
false and misleading, in that said labels and impression would and 
were calculated to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief 
that the product was manufactured by the firm of Bordon & Co., 
whereas, in truth and in fact, there is no such firm as Bordon & Co. 
and the product was manufactured by Bertin & Lepori at San Fran- 
cisco, Cal. Misbranding was charged for the further reason that 
said labels and the words and impressions thereon would and were 
calculated to mislead and deceive the purchaser into the belief that 
the product was Gordon & Co.'s dry gin, a well-known foreign prod- 
uct, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was a domestic product. Mis- 
branding was charged for the further reason that the labels and 
words and impressions thereon and the general appearance of the 
bottle was an imitation of another well-known article having a dis- 
tinctive name, to wit, Gordon & Co.'s dry gin.
91708°—No. 2405—13
(2) Of a quantity of Benedittina which was misbranded. The 
product was labeled: "Benedittina Liquor (A D G M) Savart Freres 
Brand." (Neck label) "Liquor bonus est." (Sticker) "The original 
contents of this package guaranteed under the National Pure Food 
Law, June 30, 1906, by Bertin & Lepori, Inc."
Misbranding of the product was charged in the indictment for the 
reason that the word "Benedittina" used on the bottles is the Italian 
word for benedictine, and each bottle containing the product was a 
squat bottle, which is the shape of the bottle in which genuine bene- 
dictine is imported into this country; that on the neck of the bottle 
and blown into the glass was a trade mark seal similar to that borne 
by the bottles in which genuine benedictine is imported into this 
country; that the mouth of the bottle bore a seal which was similar 
to that borne by the bottles in which genuine benedictine is imported 
into this country; that the bottles bore the label set forth above and 
the general appearance of the bottles and the seals and labels and 
impressions thereon were false and misleading, in that said general 
appearance of the bottles, seals, and labels, and the words and impres- 
sions on the labels would and were calculated to deceive and mislead 
the purchaser into the belief that the product was a foreign product, 
to wit, genuine benedictine, a liquor manufactured under a secret 
formula by the monks of Normandy, whereas, in truth and in fact, 
the product was a domestic product and was manufactured in the 
United States, and further the so-called Benedittina by and through 
the labels thereon and the impressions and words upon the labels 
purported to be a foreign product, to wit, genuine benedictine, which 
is a liquor manufactured under a secret formula by the monks of 
Normandy, whereas, in truth and fact, it was an imitation of bene- 
dictine manufactured in the United States, and further, the general 
appearance of the bottles and seals and labels thereon and the words 
and impressions on said labels would and were calculated to deceive 
and mislead the purchaser into the belief that the product was genu- 
ine benedictine, a well-known foreign product, whereas, in truth and 
in fact, it was a domestic product, and further, the general appear- 
ance of the bottles and seals and labels was an imitation of the genu- 
ine appearance of the container, seals, and labels, and the words and 
impressions on the labels of another well-known article having a dis- 
tinctive name, to wit, genuine benedictine.
(3) Of a quantity of so-called Fernet-Extra which was mis- 
branded. The product was labeled: (On main label) "Fernet-Extra, 
Amaro Stomatico Febbrifugo Anticolerico—Approvato da tutte le 
celebrita' mediche. Kaccomandato contro the febbri e in mal do 
stomaco prodotto da cattiva digestine. Potente ristoratore delle 
orze e indicatissimo nolle convalescence eccitando meravigliosamente
2405
1' appetite Si prendeca tutte Y ore puro e misto all' acque, al Seltz, 
vino, calfs, vermouth, etc, etc. Aumentare 1' use puando 1' effetto 
non sia pronto. Si trova press tutti i Caffettieri, Farmacisti, 
Emporii, etc. Domandare sempre Fernet Extra." (On small label) 
"Fernet Extra. Guaranty Legend." (On back of bottle) "The 
original contents of this package guaranteed under the National 
Pure Food Law, June 30, 1906, by Bertin & Lepori, Inc."
Analysis of a sample of this product by the Bureau of Chemistry 
of this Department showed it to contain 47.60 per cent of alcohol by 
volume. Misbranding of the product was charged in the indictment 
for the reason that the label set forth above and the words and impres- 
sions thereon were false and misleading, in that said labels and words 
would and were calculated to give the purchaser thereof the impres- 
sion, and to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief, that 
the product was a foreign product, and by and through said labels 
and words the so-called Fernet-Extra purported to be a foreign 
product, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not a foreign product, 
but was a domestic product and was manufactured within the United 
States. Misbranding was charged for the further reason that the 
bottles containing the product failed to bear a statement on the 
label of the quantity or proportion of alcohol contained therein and 
a large portion of the product was alcohol.
It was further charged in the indictment that on September 24, 
1909, an indictment containing two counts was returned against the 
defendant in this case, being Criminal Proceeding No. 4711 of said 
court charging said defendant with the shipment in violation of the 
Food and Drugs Act on April 28, 1908, from the State of California 
into the State of Washington, of a quantity of oil which was adulter- 
ated, and further that on November 23, 1909, said defendant entered 
a plea of guilty to the indictment and on November 24, 1909, the 
court pronounced judgment upon said defendant and sentenced it 
to pay a fine amounting to $200.
On December 28, 1912, the defendant company entered a plea of 
guilty to the indictment in the present proceeding and on December 
31, 1912, the court imposed a fine of $750.
WILLIS L. MOORE, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, March 8,1918.
2405
o