Case law

Fessenden v. Wilson

48 F.2d 422 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1931

Ed. 161 ; Beach v. Fowler, 1889 C. D. 187; Carty v. Kellogg, 7 *424 App. D. C. 542, 1896 C. D. 188; Hien v. Pungs, 1894 C. D. 92. … With respect to the diligence of Fessenden, we agree with the conclusion of the Board.

United States v. Goldberg

3 Ct. Cust. 394 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 21, 1912

We see no reason to depart from the conclusion we reached on a very similar question in the case of Lunham v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 220 ; T. … We do not understand the case of United States v. Dominici (78 Fed. Rep., 334) or United States v. Ranlett ( 172 U.

Marine v. Wright

74 F.2d 996 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 4, 1935

After the decision of the board, appellant filed a motion for rehearing; said motion was denied, the board again affirming the right of appellee to make the claim. … Marshall and Levandosky v. Ledwinka, 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 728, 67 F. (2d) 495, and cases therein cited.

Bendix Aviation Corporation v. Ardor Manufacturing Company, Inc.

331 F.2d 903 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1964

On reconsideration the board added: “Upon a review of the record in this proceeding, the Board remains of the opinion that the sale of the products of the parties under the surname ‘BENDIX’ and the suggestive term ‘BENDIT … See In re General Electric Co., 304 F.2d 688 , 49 CCPA 1186 (“Vulcan” v. “Vulkene”), and Lever Bros. Co. v. Producers Chemical Service, 283 F.2d 879 , 48 CCPA 744 (“Lux” v. “Shux”).

Straus v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 414 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1917

It appears that in Loeb et al. v. … See Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 128 ; T. D. 35389) and United States v. Sheldon & Co., supra.

United States v. Kelley Hardware Co.

12 Ct. Cust. 204 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 5, 1924

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest. … —United States v. Strohmeyer and Arpe Co. ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 246 ; T. D. 35473).

Burns v. Curtis

172 F.2d 588 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1949

See McKee v. Stevens, 79 F.2d 914 , 23 C.C.P.A., Patents, 701, and Chandler v. Mock, 150 F.2d 563 , 32 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1183. . … See Hurd v. Smith, 97 F.2d 147 , 25 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1137; Preston et al. v. White, 97 F.2d 160 , 25 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1219; and Petersen v. Thomas, 56 App.D.C. 113 , 10 F.2d 908 .

United States v. Arnold

4 Ct. Cust. 49 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 28, 1913

That evidence might, in the absence of all other, be furnished by the importation itself or by a sample thereof. ' Krusi v. United States *51 ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 168 ; T. D. 31213); Knauth v. United States ( 1 Ct. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Dunlop Bros. v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 231 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1913

Spielman v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 61 ; T. D. 31626). … This application was denied by Board 2.

National Carloading Corp. v. United States

469 F.2d 1398 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 29, 1972

See United States v. Jovita Perez, 36 CCPA 114, 118-19, C.A.D. 407 (1949); English Electric Export & Trading Co. v. United States, 53 CCPA 84, 88, C.A.D. 881 (1966). … Hill Brown Corp. v. United States, 54 CCPA 99, C.A.D. 917 (1967), also involved the propriety of a method of assessing general expenses and profit.

Kyrides v. Andersen

121 F.2d 514 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 2, 1941

Blodgett and Hanson v. Richter, 79 F.2d 922 , 23 C.C.P.A., Patents, 749; Ufer and Niemann v. Williams, 79 *517 F.2d 892, 23 C.C.P.A., Patents, 797; Walsh et al. v. Davidson et al., supra. … Co. v. Pneumatic Scale Corporation, 1 Cir., 166 F. 288 , and cases therein reviewed. For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed. Reversed.

In re Ruff

256 F.2d 590 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1958

Butler Bros. v. Pratt, 253 F. 654, 656 (CCA-8), and cases there cited. … Co., Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.

Stonecutter Mills Corporation v. Universal Overall Company, Universal Overall Company v. Stonecutter Mills Corporation

379 F.2d 979 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 22, 1967

Pedigree Fabrics, Inc., 161 F.2d 226 , 34 CCPA 1043, and Goodall-Sanford, Inc. v. J. M. Wood Mfg. Co., Inc., 100 USPQ 256 (Comr.1954). … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 .

McCabe v. Cramblet

65 F.2d 459 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 12, 1933

We may add that Field v. Stow, supra, was cited with approval in the case of Atherton v. Payne, 19 C. C. P. A. … Brogden v. Slater, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1240, 40 F. (2d) 988. For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In Re Bager

47 F.2d 951 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1931

Brill v. Third Ave. R. Co. (C. C.) 103 F. 289 ; Edison Electric Light Co. v. Novelty Incandescent Lamp Co. (C. C. A.) 167 F. 977 ; A. R. Mosler & Co. v. Lurie (C. C. A.) 209 F. 364 ; Munising Paper Co., Limited, v. … Jockmus v. Leviton (C. C. A.) 28 F.(2d) 812 .

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).

Turner & Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 48 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 24, 1924

See also United States v. Fondeville ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 135 ; T. D. 36457); True Fit Waterproof Co. v. United States (id. 489; T. D. 37107); Field & Co. v. United States (id. 332; T. D. 36876); Calhoun v. … In the case of United States v.

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).

Snitzer v. Etzel

531 F.2d 1062 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 8, 1976

In Nicolaou v. … For example, in Dreyfus v.

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.