Legal Opinion · Dissent
United States v. Cartoned Bottles
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided April 8, 1969No. 367, Docket 32847Published
1DissentMansfield, District Judge
(dissenting) :
The Court today holds that a cosmetic which is not in fact a “drug” must nevertheless be classified as such because of the vendor’s use in its labelling and advertising of two phrases deemed to carry “physiological connotations.” I find myself unable to go along with this view.
“Sudden Change” recognizes that wrinkles are but the irreparable footprints of time, and that they may be temporarily softened or masked, but not obliterated. The product does not enter the tissue, cells, or molecular structure of the skin, or work any physiological changes in the body. It merely alters…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Charles of the Ritz Distributors Corp. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
- Aronberg v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1942
- Amp Incorporated v. John W. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, and James L. Goddard, Commissioner of Food and DrugsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1968
- The J. B. Williams Company, Inc., and Parkson Advertising Agency, Inc. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1967
- United States v. 47 Bottles, More or LessDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1962