The words

Immediately preceded, with equal conspicuousness

On this page11

The qualifier has two requirements attached and they are different Immediately preceded rules out a footnote And equal conspicuousness rules out small print Which puts it in company with two other rules in this library All three insist that a reader cannot meet half the message Paragraph (a) handles the simpler case and handles it absolutely So an unqualified stone name is a claim that the stone was mined The list of covered words is wider than the four it names Which means the generic words are inside the rule as well And the purpose clause states what all of it is for References

Not merely conspicuous. First, and as prominent.

The qualifier has two requirements attached and they are different

It must immediately precede the stone name, and it must do so with equal conspicuousness. One is about position and the other is about prominence.

Immediately preceded rules out a footnote

A disclosure elsewhere on the page, however prominent, does not satisfy the paragraph. The word has to come directly before the name it qualifies, so a reader meets them as one phrase.

And equal conspicuousness rules out small print

A qualifier in smaller type, lighter weight or lower contrast is not equal, and the requirement is explicit about equality rather than about adequacy.

Which puts it in company with two other rules in this library

The textile fiber rules require a trademark to carry its generic name in immediate conjunction and in type or lettering of equal size and conspicuousness. The wool rules require a country of origin on the front side of the label.

All three insist that a reader cannot meet half the message

A trademark without its generic name, an origin on the back of a tag, or a stone name without its qualifier all present a true statement that reads as a different one.

Paragraph (a) handles the simpler case and handles it absolutely

It is unfair or deceptive to use the unqualified words ruby, sapphire, emerald, topaz, or the name of any other precious or semi-precious stone to describe any product that is not in fact a mined stone of the type described.

So an unqualified stone name is a claim that the stone was mined

Which is the baseline the rest of the section works from. Everything after paragraph (a) is about what may be added to that name and how.

The list of covered words is wider than the four it names

Ruby, sapphire, emerald and topaz, and then the name of any other precious or semi-precious stone, and then stone, birthstone, gem, gemstone or similar term.

Which means the generic words are inside the rule as well

Calling something a gemstone or a birthstone is a claim about origin even though no particular mineral has been named. The rule treats the category word the same way it treats a species name.

And the purpose clause states what all of it is for

So as to disclose clearly the nature of the product and the fact it is not a mined gemstone. Which is the standard every permitted word has to meet, and the standard faux fails.

References

16 CFR 23.25(b) and its notes. Paragraph (b) makes it unfair or deceptive to use the word "ruby," "sapphire," "emerald," "topaz," or the name of any other precious or semi-precious stone, or the word "stone," "birthstone," "gem," "gemstone," or similar term, to describe a laboratory-grown, laboratory-created, synthetic, imitation or simulated stone "unless such word or name is immediately preceded with equal conspicuousness by the word “laboratory-grown,” “laboratory-created,” “[manufacturer name]-created,” or some other word or phrase of like meaning, or by the word “imitation” or “simulated,” so as to disclose clearly the nature of the product and the fact it is not a mined gemstone." Note 1: "The use of the word “faux” to describe a laboratory-created or imitation stone is not an adequate disclosure that the stone is not a mined stone." law.cornell.edu

16 CFR 23.25, Note 2 to paragraph (b): "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 (e.g., “cultured ruby”) is qualified by a clear and conspicuous disclosure (for example, the words “laboratory-created,” “laboratory-grown,” “[manufacturer name]-created,” or some other word or phrase of like meaning) conveying that the product is not a mined stone." And 23.25(c): it is unfair or deceptive to use "laboratory-grown," "laboratory-created," "[manufacturer name]-created," "synthetic," or other word or phrase of like meaning with the name of any natural stone "unless such product has essentially the same optical, physical, and chemical properties as the stone named." Paragraph (a) makes it deceptive to use an unqualified stone name "to describe any product that is not in fact a mined stone of the type described." law.cornell.edu

Written from 16 CFR part 23 and from the catalog as it stood on 19 October 2026. Part 23 contains the Federal Trade Commission guides for the jewelry, precious metals and pewter industries and addresses how a seller may describe a stone or a pearl; it does not govern containers, and it does not reach any row on this shelf. Nothing here states the identity, origin, grade, value or treatment of any stone, and nothing here is grading, appraisal or authentication guidance. The catalog records a container color, not an optical performance, and no page converts one into the other.