2975. Misbranding of candy. U. S. V. 20 Dozen Boxes and 12 Dozen Boxes of 
Candy (and 4 other seizure actions against eandy). Default deerees of 
condemnation.     Product   ordered  delivered  to   charitable  institutions.
(F. D. C. Nos. 4914, 4915, 4977, 5426, 5608.    Sample Nos. 56699-E, 69996-B, 
69997-E, 69999-B, 70000-E, 74268-B, 74306-B to 74308-E, incl.)
A portion of this product was short weight, and the containers in all lots 
were deceptive.   It was misbranded further as indicated below.
Between June 17 and September 2, 1941, the United States attorneys for the 
District of New Jersey and the District of Connecticut filed libels against the 
following quantities of candy: 32 dozen boxes at Paterson, 48 dozen boxes at 
Union City, 424 boxes at Irvington, and 302 boxes at Newark, N. J.; and 9 cases, 
each containing 100 packages, at Hartford, Conn., alleging that the article had 
.been shipped in interstate commerce within the period from on or about May 
15 to on or about August 18,1941, by Delight Sweets, Inc., from New York, N. Y.; 
and charging that it was misbranded. It was labeled in part: "Hollywood Choco- 
lates Net Weight 6 Oz."; "Duplex Assortment Rum and Butter and Assorted 
Chews *. * * Net Weight 4 Oz."; "Duplex Assortment Gums & Chews Net 
Weight 5 Oz."; "Gum Joy Assortment Net Weight 4 Oz."; or "Social Sweets 
Gums & Chews Net Weight 8 Oz."
The article was alleged'to be misbranded in that its container was so made 
and filled as to be misleading, since the boxes were too large for the amount 
of candy they contained and the candy did not occupy a reasonable amount of 
the available space. Portions of the article were alleged to be misbranded 
further: (9 eases) (1) In that the statement "Net Weight 4 Oz." was false and 
misleading, and (2) in that it was in package form and did not bear a label 
containing the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or 
distributor, and did not bear a label containing an accurate statement of the 
quantity of the contents. Certain lots were alleged to be misbranded further in 
that the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, 
the statement of quantity of contents, and the statement of ingredients, required 
by law to appear on the label or labeling, were not prominently placed thereon 
with such conspieuousness (as compared with other words, statements, designs, 
or devices in the labeling) as to render them likely to be read by the ordinary 
individual under customary conditions of purchase and use.
Between September 23 and November 19, 1941, no claimant having appeared, 
judgments of condemnation were entered and the product was ordered distributed 
to charitable institutions.
Nos. 2976 to 2978 report the seizure and disposition of candies which were 
represented to be efficacious*- in the treatment of obesity but which consisted 
substantially of caramel candy and which would furnish about the same amount 
of calories as that type of candy.