Weeks v. United States

Background

A maker and seller of ingredients for bakers and confectioners shipped a product labeled “Special Lemon. Lemon Terpene and Citral” from one State to another. A traveling salesman had shown a sample labeled simply “Special Lemon” and told buyers it was pure lemon oil from a second pressing. In fact the product was an imitation containing alcohol and citral from lemon grass, with some lemon elements missing or out of proportion. The company was charged under the Act of June 30, 1906, on two counts: a false or misleading label and offering the product for sale under the distinctive name of another article.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether misbranding can be shown by how the product was offered for sale, not only by the shipping label. The statute defines two kinds of misbranding: one based on a false or misleading label and another based on offering something as if it were a different article. The Court held the salesman’s statements were admissible because they tended to prove the article was offered under the name of another product. The trial judge told the jury the company could be held criminally responsible only if the salesman’s representations were made by the company’s authority, and the verdict necessarily found such authorization.

Real world impact

The ruling means companies can be criminally convicted when their agents sell imitations as genuine products in interstate commerce. Sellers must watch both labels and sales pitches, and ensure agents do not misrepresent products.