Case law

Morton-Norwich Products, Inc. v. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc.

531 F.2d 561 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 8, 1976

We agree with the board that the close relationship of the parties’ goods and the similarity of commercial impressions of the marks are such that confusion would be likely. Spice Islands, Inc. v. … The board’s statement that likelihood of confusion from the simultaneous use of the parties’ marks on their goods is indicative of probable damage is clearly correct. Daggett & Ramsdell, Inc. v.

James Harding v. Samuel Steingiser and Ival O. Salyer

318 F.2d 748 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1963

In Blicke v. … In support of that holding the board relied on Teter v. Kearby, 169 F.2d 808 , 36 CCPA 706, and Schering Corp. v. Marzall, D.C., 101 F.Supp. 571 .

United States v. Macy

7 Ct. Cust. 8 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1916

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest. … See also Steinhardt v.

United States v. Dorn

13 Ct. Cust. 130 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1925

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest upon the theory that, in United States v. Stegemann, decided May 5, 1924, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 198 , T. … D. 40179, this court had intended to depart from the rule previously declared in United States v. Francklyn, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 54 , T. D. 33306, and in United States v. Hirsch, Stein & Co., 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 121 , T.

C. R. Bard, Inc. v. Foley Bag Catheter, Inc.

394 F.2d 582 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 16, 1968

We find no reversible error in the board’s finding that the answer amounts to a proper pleading. 4 . C. R. Bard, Inc. v. Foley Bag Catheter, Inc., 132 USPQ 470 (T.T. & A.B., 1961). 5 . … Appellant has cited Fischbeck v. Kleeno, 44 App.D.C. 6 , (1915), and Walgreen Co. v.

Application of Maximilian Paul Schmidt

293 F.2d 274 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 16, 1961

We do not consider the cases cited by the board to be dispositive of the issue here. In its decision, the board relied heavily upon the decision of the District Court in John Blue Company, Incorporated v. … In John Blue Company, Incorporated v. Dempster Mill Mfg.

In Re Crosley

159 F.2d 735 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1947

As stated in the case of In re Merz, 97 F.2d 599 , 25 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1314, 1317, referring to the case of Farbenfabriken of Elberfeld Co. v. … Accordingly, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Morimura Bros v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 211 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 20, 1917

United States v. Zinn ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 419 ; T. D. 32171). … They are United States v. Muhlens et al. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 496 ; T. D. 33917) and United States v. Vantine ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 516 ; T. D. 33937).

Wilson & Son (Inc.) v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 234 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1926

In Naday ds Fleischer, supra, the board followed this court in United States v. Douglas & Berry, 6 Ct. Cust. … Dec. 163 ), United States v. Douglas & Berry ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 100 ; T. D. 35342), and United States v. White & Co. (3 Id. 382; T. D. 32968). With this conclusion we agree. .

In re Wiseman

596 F.2d 1019 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 26, 1979

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) affirming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-3, 6, 9, and 10 in appellants’ application serial No. 639,391, filed … Although there may be patentable invention where the solution is obvious after the discovery of the cause of the problem, Eibel Process Co. v.

Malm v. Schneider

101 F.2d 201 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1939

Schneider appealed ex parte to the Board of Appeals. … The decision of the board is affirmed.

United States v. Ringk

3 Ct. Cust. 353 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 28, 1912

The board held that the merchandise was assessable at 5 per cent as belting leather, basing its holding upon the authority of United States v. Richards ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 537 ; T. D. 31548). … The merchandise was properly rated by the board under the Richards case as belting leather.

United States v. Traders Paper Co.

14 Ct. Cust. 293 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1926

From this judgment the Government has appealed to this court and contends that the board erred as follows: 1. … price asked and obtained for delivery “at the place of destination, it seems to us that this should be the correct home market value, and that this case is controlled absolutely by this court’s decision in United States v.

The Frostie Company v. Sun-Glo Packers, Inc., Sun-Glo Packers, Inc. v. The Frostie Company

315 F.2d 932 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 25, 1963

It was the opinion of the board that “FROSTY” or “FROSTIE” as applied to a soft drink suggests one that is cold, chilled, or refreshingly cool. … While we have, in certain cases, e. g., Murray Corporation of America v.

Hull v. Davenport

90 F.2d 103 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1937

Christie v. Seybold (C.C.A.) 55 F. 69 ; Woods v. Poor, 29 App.D.C. 397 ; Grundy v. Van Leir, 75 F.(2d) 503 , 22 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1034; Wilson et al. v. Shorts et al., 81 F.(2d) 755 , 23 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 914. … Briggs v. Lillie et al., 1905 C.D. 168.

United States v. Mandel

1 Ct. Cust. 223 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 25, 1911

D. 25878); Megros. v. United States (53 Fed. Rep., 244), and Fritz v. United States (135 Fed. … The cases of Seeberger v. Farwell ( 139 U. S., 608 ) and Magone v. Luckemeyer ( 139 U.

Application of Vincent J. Frilette and Paul B. Weisz

436 F.2d 496 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 14, 1971

Frilette v. Kimberlin, 412 F.2d 1390 , 56 CCPA 1242 (1969). Appellants then filed the divisional application which is now before us. … See Frilette v. Kimberlin, supra, 412 F.2d at 1396 , 56 CCPA at 1250.

United States v. Lord

4 Ct. Cust. 322 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1913

The decisions of the board just cited are not at all in conflict with the decisions reached in the protest of Leon Rheims Co. (T. D. 27541), affirmed by the Circuit Court in Leon Rheims Co. v. … United States ( 154 Fed., 969 ), and by the Circuit Court of Appeals in Leon Rheims Co. v. United States ( 160 Fed., 925 ).

Bogle v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 144 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 5, 1911

Delapenha & Co. v. United States (supra, p. 113, T. D. 31116.) Much of what we have just said applies to the jams involved in the present case. … While we think jams might well be called fruits preserved in sugar (Habicht v. United States, supra, p. 10, T.

The W. E. Bassett Company v. The Scholl Mfg. Co., Inc.

388 F.2d 1014 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1968

cited Menendez v. … This court stated in Powermatics, Inc. v.