Case law

Wetmore v. Quick

536 F.2d 937 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1976

Schwab et al. v. Pittman 172 USPQ 59 [sic, 69]. … In Josserand v.

Pantasote Co. v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 47 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 18, 1910

In United States v. Schering (123 Fed. … United States v. Rosen-wald (67 Fed. Rep., 323); Arthur v. Unkart ( 96 U. S., 122 ); Muser v. Magone ( 155 U. S., 240 ). We have heretofore recited the issuable facts in this case.

Foremost-Mckesson, Inc. v. Foremost Sales Promotions, Inc.

443 F.2d 1191 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1971

What we said in Witco Chemical Co. v. … The decisions of the board in the opposition and the cancellation are affirmed. Affirmed.

In Re Tucker

54 F.2d 815 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 4, 1932

Blythe Co. v. Hinckley et al. (C. C. A.) 111 F. 827 ; Dean v. Davis et al. (C. C. A.) 212 F. 88 ; Evans v. Suess Ornamental Glass Co. (C. C. A.) 83 F. 706 ; Smart v. Wright (C. C. A.) 227 F. 84 . … Cas. 226 , No. 107, and Burlew v. O’Neil, 4 Fed. Cas. 751 , No. 2167.

United States v. Germain

3 Ct. Cust. 321 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1912

In Trefousse v. United States (144 Fed. Rep., 708). the Circuit Court, by Platt, judge, reversed the board on the authority of the Robinson case (124 Fed. … D. 31320); United States v. Perkins (ibid., 323; T. D. 31340); Carson v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 105 ; T. D. 31656); United States v. Wertheimer ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 454 ; T. D. 32204).

In re Griner

287 F.2d 178 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1961

We think the board correctly held that claims 3, 5, 15, and 16 define nothing more than the application of the Denison process to blocks of biscuits stacked on edge, and the board’s decision as to those claims is affirmed … The board held that the V-shaped fold is an obvious method of folding commonly employed in closing the ends of grocery-bags.

In re Simulations Publications, Inc.

521 F.2d 797 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 11, 1975

We agree with appellant that the examiner and the board properly referred to a standard dictionary to determine the ordinary significance and meaning of the words in issue. Hancock v. … Meyer Chemical Co. v. Anahist Co., 263 F.2d 344 , 46 CCPA 784 (1959).

United States v. Wells, Fargo & Co.

1 Ct. Cust. 158 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1911

The board, however, concluded that by reason of the principles laid down in United States v. Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co. (137 Fed. … . *162 See also Maddock v. Magone ( 152 U. S., 368 ); United States v. Buffalo Natural Gas & Fuel Co. ( 172 U. S., 339 ).

James Burrough Ltd. v. LaJoie

462 F.2d 570 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 13, 1972

Opinion We have no difficulty concluding that the board erred in sustaining the applicants’ equitable defense in this case. In Salem Commodities, Inc. v. … We therefore do not have the benefit of its views in this regard, and we remand to allow the board to make a fully focused inquiry into this question. Myers v.

United States v. Bradshaw & Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 121 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 29, 1914

United States v. Bauer ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 343 ; T. D. 22627). … Inasmuch, however, as the appeal fails, the decision of the board is affirmed. United States v. Eytinge & Co. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 266 ; T. D. 33486).

Bloodhart v. Levernier

64 F.2d 367 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 12, 1933

Railway Co. v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 554 , 24 L. Ed. 1053 ; Lindley v. Shephard, 58 App. D. C. 31, 24 F.(2d) 606 , and cases cited; Lopulco Systems v. Bonnot Co. (C. C. A.) 24 F.(2d) 510 . … Permutit Co. v. Graver Corp., 284 U. S. 52, 60 , 52 S. Ct. 53 , 76 L. Ed. 163 .

United States v. Yamashita

1 Ct. Cust. 341 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 20, 1911

State v. … See also Leisy v. Hardin ( 135 U. S., 110 ); Commonwealth v. Schol-lenberger (27 Atl. Rep., Pa., 30); Haley v. State (60 N. W., Nebr., 362).

United States Treasury v. Synthetic Plastics Co.

341 F.2d 157 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1965

the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. … See Seamless Rubber Co. v. Ethicon, Inc., 268 F.2d 231 , 46 CCPA 950. The refusal of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to strike the paragraphs referred to in appellant’s motion to strike is not such a “decision.”

In re World's Finest Chocolate, Inc.

474 F.2d 1012 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 15, 1973

In re Shenango Ceramics, Inc., 53 CCPA 1268, 362 F.2d 287 (1966); Best Lock Corp. v. Schlage Lock Co., 56 CCPA 1472, 413 F.2d 1195 (1969). It therefore is a trademark capable of being registered. … The decision of the board is therefore reversed. Reversed. . Trademark application Serial No. 256,703 filed October 19, 1966.

Auffmordt v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 56 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 11, 1916

The board relied in its decision upon the case of Robinson v. United States ( 122 Fed., 970 ). … See American Bead Co. v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 459 ; T. D. 35001). The decision of the board is reversed.

The Tas-T-Nut Company v. Variety Nut & Date Company

304 F.2d 903 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 25, 1962

The board held that it would not and dismissed the opposition. The board said: “The marks ‘PIC-A-NUT’ and ‘TAS-T-NUT’ are alike, as contended by applicant [opposer?] … Supp. 528 , affirmed, 208 F.2d 414 (1953), and Tas-T-Nut Co. v. Variety Nut & Date Co., 136 F.Supp. 775 , reversed, 245 F.2d 3 , (1957).

Colgate-Palmolive Company v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., by Change of Name From Carter Products Inc.

432 F.2d 1400 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 12, 1970

The board’s response to this contention was that such inclusiveness did not ipso facto warrant a holding that the marks are confusingly similar, citing Murray Corporation of America v. … We think, however, the language employed by this court in Denney v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp., 263 F.2d 347 , 46 CCPA 790 (1959), bears relevance to the instant appeal.

Application of Williams

188 F.2d 509 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1951

Harder v. Hayward, 150 F.2d 256 , 32 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1051. 2 . Citing: Hoover Co. v. … Ooms, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 215 , 157 F.2d 73 ; Philadelphia Storage Battery Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 7 Cir., 117 F.2d 642 ; Moore v. United States ex rel. Chott, 40 App.D.C. 591 . 3 . Citing: Cochrane v.

United States v. Reiss

3 Ct. Cust. 230 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 8, 1912

Thereupon the board held that as the merchandise was shown to contain but an insignificant quantity of alcohol the cherries were dutiable as claimed by the importers, on the authority of United States v. … Nor do the importers rely on any claim in their protest other than the one sustained by the board in this case. It appears, therefore, that the case of United States v.

Application of Edward M. Rothermel and Russell B. Waddell, Jr

276 F.2d 393 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 30, 1960

Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45 , 43 *398 S.Ct. 322, 67 L.Ed. 523 ; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc. v. Ray-O-Vac Co., 321 U.S. 275 , 64 S.Ct. 593 , 88 L.Ed. 721 . … Vv’e think there is a factual distinction between the present case and the cases relied upon by the board.