3033.?Misbranding of champagne cognac.   XT. S. v. 349 Cases Champagne Cognac.   Decree
of condemnation by consent.   Product released on bond.   (F. & D. Nos. 5027 to 5045,?
incl.   S. No. 1687.)
On February 10, 1913, the United, States attorney for the District of Massachusetts,?
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the?
United States for said district a libel for the seizure and condemnation of 249 cases of?
champagne cognac, remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages at Boston,?
Mass., alleging that the product had been shipped by A. Blum Jr.'s Sons, New York,?
N. Y., consigned to A. B. Christie & Co., Boston, Mass., and transported from the State?
of New York into the State of Massachusetts, and charging misbranding in violation of?
the Food and Drugs Act. The product was labeled: (On case) "Bottled by Vve Rob??
ert & Cie, Cognac?S. S. France?B. New York?Vve Robert & Cie, Cognac?France."?
(On bottles) "Fine Champagne Cognac?Trade Mark."?(Design?in gilt color a barrel?
bearing a figure on top and stenciled on one end "Vve Robert & Cie, Cognac "; grape?
vines and clusters of grapes) "Vve Robert & Cie.?Cognac?France."
Misbranding of the product was alleged in the libel for the reason that said food?
upon the packages and labels thereof bore certain statements, designs, and devices?
regarding the ingredients and substances contained in said food, that is to say, the?
following words, abbreviations of words, and pictures: "Bottled by Vve Robert &?
Cie, Cognac, S. S. France," "Fine Champagne Cognac, Trade Mark," and a picture?
of a barrel prominently displayed thereon surrounded by pictures of grape vines and?
clusters of grapes, and the words "Bottled by Vve Robert & Cie," printed upon a?
capsule on each of the aforesaid packages, under which said capsule on each of said?
packages there appeared printed thereon three stars, all of which said statements,?
designs, and devices were false and misleading, because they would then and there?
lead the purchaser to believe that said food consisted of champagne cognac, whereas,?
in truth and in fact, it did not. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that?
the product was labeled and branded, by reason of the words, abbreviation of words,?
and pictures set forth above, so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the?
belief that the food was a foreign product, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not such?
a product. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that said food, packages,?
and labels thereof bore certain statements, designs, and devices regarding the ingredi??
ents and the substances contained therein; that is to say, the words, abbreviations of?
words, and pictures appearing thereon set forth above, said statements, designs, and?
devices being false and misleading in a certain particular; that is to say, because they?
would lead the purchaser to believe that said food was champagne cognac and the?
product of a foreign country, whereas, in truth and in fact, said food was not a cham??
pagne cognac and was not a product of a foreign country.
On May 17, 1913, the A. Blum Jr.'s Sons, New York, N. Y., claimant, having ad??
mitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was?
entered, and it was ordered by the court that the product should be delivered to said?
claimant upon payment of the costs of the proceedings and the filing of a satisfactory?
bond in the sum of $1,500 in conformity with section 10 of the act.
B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, May 6, 1914.