A disclosure that needs its own disclosure
On this page11
The second note permits a word and then conditions it
Marketers may use the word cultured to describe laboratory-created gemstone products that have essentially the same optical, physical, and chemical properties as the named stone, if the term is qualified by a clear and conspicuous disclosure conveying that the product is not a mined stone.
So cultured ruby is permitted with a second phrase attached
Laboratory-created, laboratory-grown, a manufacturer name followed by created, or some other word or phrase of like meaning. A disclosure word that needs a disclosure word.
Which is unusual and the reason is the word’s history
Cultured already has an established meaning for pearls, where it names a real and distinct product. Carrying it across to gemstones risks importing that familiarity without the same facts behind it.
And the permission has a substantive condition before the labeling one
Essentially the same optical, physical, and chemical properties as the named stone. Three properties, and the word may not be used at all unless all three hold.
Paragraph (c) makes that condition into its own prohibition
It is unfair or deceptive to use laboratory-grown, laboratory-created, a manufacturer name followed by created, synthetic, or other word of like meaning with the name of any natural stone unless the product has essentially the same optical, physical, and chemical properties as the stone named.
So the qualifier is a claim and it can be false
A seller who writes laboratory-grown ruby about something that is not optically, physically and chemically like a ruby has made a deceptive statement by using the word that was supposed to protect them.
Which is a structure worth naming because it is easy to miss
The disclosure requirement and the substantive requirement point in opposite directions. One says you must add a word. The other says adding that word asserts something you must be able to support.
Essentially is the qualifier doing the work in both places
Not identical. Essentially the same, which admits the small differences any two specimens would show and excludes a material one. This library has collected several such qualifiers and they all move a test from absolute to practical.
Three properties rather than one is the other notable part
Optical, physical and chemical. A stone that matches on two of the three does not satisfy the condition, and a reader could easily assume optical resemblance was the point when it is one third of it.
Nothing on these pages determines any of this for anything
No page states whether any stone is mined, grown, treated or imitation. Those are determinations about physical objects and this is a packaging catalog.