4259. Misbranding of Ko-rekT dental device. U. S. v. Demetrie C. Siampaus
(Siampaus Mfg. Co.). Plea of not guilty. Tried to the jury. Verdict
of not guilty on count 1 and verdict of guilty on count 2. Sentence of
90 days in jail suspended. Costs assessed and defendant placed on pro-
bation for 1 year.    (F. D. C. No. 33788.    Sample Nos. 33667-L, 46538-L.)
INFORMATION FILED: August 11, 1953, District of Nebraska, against Demetrie
O. Siampaus, trading as the Siampaus Mfg. Co., Omaha, Nebr.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about January 1 and March 13, 1952, from the State
of Nebraska into the States of Illinois and Louisiana.
PRODUCT : Examination showed that the Ko-rekT dental device consisted essen-
tially of 2 counter-rotating rubber discs mounted on metal shafts turned by
a handcrank for the purpose of cleaning the teeth and massaging the gums.
NATURE OF CHARGE: Count 1. Misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain state-
ments in the accompanying labeling of the device, consisting of a cardboard
carton insert headed "Throw Away Tour Tooth Brush," were false and mis-
leading. The statements represented and suggested that the device was ade-
quate and effective for the prevention and treatment of bad breath, tartar
formation, infected gums and their complications, tooth decay, and pyorrhea,
and that the use of the device would assure a healthy mouth. The device was
not adequate and effective for the prevention and treatment of the conditions
mentioned, and the use of the device would not assure a healthy mouth.
Count 2. Misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements in the ac-
companying labeling of the device, consisting of a cardboard carton insert
headed "Throw Away Your Tooth Brush," circulars headed "Turn On That
Smile with Ko-rekT," and "The Dialogue Below Reveals the Weakest and
Therefore the Most Dangerous Part of Our Body," and a leaflet headed
"Throw Away Your Tooth Brush," were false and misleading. The state-
ments represented and suggested that the device was adequate and effective
for the prevention and treatment of bad breath, tartar formation, infected
gums and their complications, tooth and gum trouble, tooth decay, toothache,
pyorrhea, infected teeth, loss of teeth, loose teeth, and recession of the gums;
that use of the device would assure healthy gums, healthy mouth, good health,
and increased longevity; and that the device would rebuild the teeth and jaw
bone and preserve youthful appearance. The device was not adequate and
effective for the prevention and treatment of the conditions mentioned, and it
would not fulfill the promises of benefit stated and implied.
DISPOSITION : December 12, 1953. The defendant having entered a plea of not
guilty, the ease came on for trial before the court and jury. At the con-
clusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on count 1 and a
verdict of guilty on count 2. The court sentenced the defendant on count 2
of the information to 90 days in jail, but suspended this sentence and placed
the defendant on probation for 1 year. As a special condition of the pro-
bation, the defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution.
DRUG FOR VETERINARY USE