935. Adulteration and misbranding of Domino Brand Antiseptic Rubbing Com
pound with Isoprophyl Alcohol. U. S. v. 4,495 Dozen and 301 Dozen
Bottles of Domino Brand Antiseptic Rubbing Compound with Isoprophyl
Alcohol. Consent decree of condemnation. Product and labels ordered
destroyed. Empty bottles returned to claimant. (F. D. C. No. 6124, 6216.
Sample Nos. 75757-E, 75775-E, 75776-B.)
This product was short-volume and was neither antiseptic nor a rubbing alcohol.
In addition, its label failed to bear a statement of the quantity of proportion
of isopropyl alcohol present.
On November 1 and 15, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of
Massachusetts filed libels at Boston, Mass., against 4,495 dozen bottles of Domino
Brand Antiseptic Rubbing Compound with Isoprophyl Alcohol, alleging that the
article had been shipped by Halitosine Co., St. Louis, Mo., from on or about
September 19 to October 9, 1941, and against 301 dozen bottles of the same
product shipped by Frank's Economy Store, Burlington, Vt, from on or about
October 7 to 14,1941.
Examination of samples taken from these consignments showed that the arti-
cle consisted essentially of water, isopropyl alcohol approximately 9 percent by
volume, methyl salicylate, boric acid, and menthol. The article was alleged to
be adulterated in that its strength differed from that which it purported or was
represented to possess since it was not antiseptic, as stated in the labeling. It was
alleged to be misbranded: (1) In that the statement "1 Pint" appearing on the
label was false and misleading as applied to an article that contained less than
1 pint. (2) In that the word "Antiseptic" appearing on the label was false and
misleading as the article was not antiseptic. (3) In that the following state-
ments appearing on the label created the false and misleading impression that
the article was rubbing alcohol or the equivalent of rubbing alcohol: "Rubbing
Compound with Isoprophyl Alcohol * * * Used for Massaging, Sponging, After
Bathing, Cooling and Refreshing for Hospital and Home." And (4) in that the
label did not bear a statement of the quantity or proportion of isopropyl alcohol
present. One lot, 301 dozen bottles, was alleged to be misbranded further in
that the label did not bear a statement of the common or usual name of the drug
since the word "Hexahydrothymol," borne on the label, is not the common or
usual name of the ingredient menthol.
On December 18, 1942, Harry Lepler, .trading as Lepler & Company, Boston,
Mass., the claimant, having admitted the allegations of the libel, a consolidated
decree of condemnation was entered and the court ordered that the contents
of the bottles and their labels be destroyed, and the empty bottles be returned
to the claimant.