Case law

Deibel v. Heise & Schumacher

46 F.2d 570 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 3, 1931

Gowen v. Hendry et al., 37 F. (2d) 426, 17 C. C. P. A. 789; Brogden v. Slater, 40 F.(2d) 988 ,17 C. C. P. A. 1240. … Miel v. Young, 29 App. D. C. 481; Western Electric Company v. Martin, 39 App. D. C. 147; Leonard v. Pardee, 39 App. D. C. 458; Scott v. Longtin et al., 52 App. D. C. 102, 281 F. 606 ; Lynch v. Headley et al., 52 App. D.

Hugh S. Knowles v. George C. Tibbetts

347 F.2d 591 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 12, 1965

Lemmerman, 341 F.2d 110 , 52 CCPA 968, and Paivinen v. Sands, 339 F.2d 217 , 52 CCPA 906. … See Conner v. Joris, 241 F.2d 944 , 44 CCPA 772; Stewart v. Robinson, 55 F.2d 998 , 19 CCPA 953, and Globe-Union, Inc. v. Chicago Tel. Supply Co., 103 F.2d 722 (7th Cir. 1939).

Application of Adolph Wolfensperger

302 F.2d 950 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1962

is Thompson v. … In Vickery v.

Application of Selmi

156 F.2d 96 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 11, 1946

See Dow Chemical Co. v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co., 324 U.S. 320, 329 , 65 S.Ct. 647 , 89 L.Ed. 973 ; In re Gillett, 133 F.2d 910 . 30 C.C.P.A., Patents, 900. … board.

American Thermo-Ware Co. v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 218 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1915

Barber, Judge, delivered tlie opinion of the court: In United States v. American Thermo-Ware Co. ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 9 ; T. … United States v. Wakem ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 411 ; T. D. 32170).

Tiffany & Co. v. National Gypsum Co.

459 F.2d 527 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1972

Compare Phillips Petroleum Co. v. C. J. Webb, Inc., 58 CCPA 1255, 442 F. 2d 1376 , 170 USPQ 35 (1971). There are three points from the board’s opinions on which we will comment briefly. … Shawnee Milling Co. v.

Application of Fred P. WINSLOW

365 F.2d 1017 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 10, 1966

Brown, Washington, D. C. (Vincent L. Ramik, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D. C. (Jere W. Sears, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. … (The numbers here referred to appear in the board's opinion as quoted infra.)

American Express Co. v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 279 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1913

Notably was this true in American *280 Graphophone Co. v. Amet ( 74 Fed., 789 ). … See also Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co. ( 154 Fed., 58 ).

Pacific Mail Steamship Co. v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 102 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 26, 1912

As was well said by Townsend, Judge, in Downing v. United States (141 Fed. … In the case of United States v. China & Japan Trading Co. (71 Fed.

Food Specialty Co., Inc. v. Standard Products Company, Inc.

406 F.2d 1397 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 13, 1969

We think it sufficient merely to point out that the validity of the registration of a mark may be tested only by a cancellation proceeding. 2 Contour Chair-Lounge Co. v. … See: The Murray Corporation of America v. Red Spot Paint and Varnish Co., Inc., * * * and The Fleetwood Company v. Mende * * *. 3 [Emphasis added.]

Industrial Nucleonics Corporation v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company

328 F.2d 942 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 12, 1964

We agree with the board that the marks “AccuRay” and “AccuData” do not look alike nor, in our judgment, do *944 they have the same sound in pronunciation. … In resolving the issue here, we find much efficacy in the statement of this court in Warner-Hudnut, Inc. v.

United States v. Davies

13 Ct. Cust. 547 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1926

The issue here, therefore, reduces to the question of whether the above finding of the board is supported by any substantial evidence Metz & Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 412 , T. D. 41340, and cases cited. … In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 351 , T.

United States v. Glendinning, McLeish & Co.

12 Ct. Cust. 222 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 19, 1924

The importer filed petitions for review to a board of three general appraisers, pursuant to which the cases were argued before Board 1, which board, in accordance with its opinion, dated May 22, 1923, in each of the invoices … —United States v. Rappolt & Co. ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 21 ; T. D. 37846).

In re Ruzicka

150 F.2d 550 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 22, 1945

The a V-androstene-S-OR-17-ol compounds, R representing H or H.CO. The instant application is for the reissue of appellants’ patent No. 2,173,425, granted September 19,1939. … Appellants elected the species of groups V, VI, and VII.

United States v. Jackson

1 Ct. Cust. 25 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 25, 1910

difference between the stones either as to texture, susceptibility to polish, or in the uses to which they might be applied, and inasmuch as the United States Circuit Court of Appeals had already decided in the case of Bockmann v. … Rep., 474); United States v. Edgar C. Riebe (T. D. 30766, supra, p. 19). As, however, the Board of General Appraisers evidently considered that Bockmann v.

United States v. Walter

4 Ct. Cust. 95 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1913

The board sustained the protest. … United States v. Kwong Yuen Shing ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 14 ; T. D. 30773); Acker v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 328 ; T. D. 31431).

United States v. Gavin

23 C.C.P.A. 288 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 27, 1936

The trial court, in an opinion by Judge Brown, stated that “No commercial designation to the contrary is made out, though attempted”. … The importer on this phase of the case cites and discusses Clickman v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 151 , T. D. 38946.

Esposito v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 334 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1924

—United States v. Riebe ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 19 ; T. D. 30776). … The j udgmént of the board is therefore affirmed.

Application of Marion J. Caldwell

319 F.2d 254 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1963

See any modern dictionary and Bayer Co., Inc. v. United Drug Co., 2 Cir., 272 F. 505 , 11 T.M.Rep. 178. … Switzer Bros., Inc., 299 F.2d 160 (C.A. 9th); Sales Affiliates, Inc. v. Hutzler Bros.

In re Blaisdell

242 F.2d 779 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 29, 1957

The board adequately presented the background of this proceeding as follows: The instant application was involved in an interference No. 83,587, Blaisdell v. Allen v. … Co. v. Crescent Forge & Shovel Co. et al., 179 F. 856 (7th Cir. 1910). Appellant places much reliance upon Goodwin et al. v.