Case law

Mortsell v. Laurila

301 F.2d 947 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1962

We do not attempt to distinguish the instant case from that of Brown, Jr. v. … In the Smith case this court did not mention the Brown, Jr. case but instead quoted with approval the board’s statement that: * * * [sic] It is well settled in interference practice that rights of priority cannot be defeated

Yee Chong Lung & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 382 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 29, 1922

Gray v. Lawrence (3 Blatch. 117; Fed. Cases, vol. 10, 1031); Wells, Fargo & Co. v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 346 ; T. D. 36903) and cases there cited. … See also Osborn v. United States Bank ( 9 Wheat. 738 at 830 ); Aaron v. United States ( 155 Fed. 834 ); Underfeed Stoker Co. v. American Ship Windlass Co. ( 165 Fed. 65 ); Brown v.

In re East

495 F.2d 1361 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 9, 1974

Browning and one by Dr. Charles A. Kumins- — presented to the examiner. … Appellants dispute the board’s view on the ground that the Kumins affidavit and the Browning affidavit indicate that one skilled in the art would know that developer mixes containing magnetic carrier particles can be used

Salomon Bros. & Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 431 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1912

The board overruled the protest, and the importer appeals. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Wheeler v. Kleinschmidt

149 F.2d 161 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 9, 1945

Blanchard, et al. v. Howard D. … Coe v. Brown, 193 O. G. 511 , 1913 C. D. 187. The board apparently relied, however, upon the decision in the case of Ex parte Robinson, 32 USPQ165.

United States v. Didier-March Co.

2 Ct. Cust. 436 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1912

Not being susceptible of decoration, the machines imported were not dutiable under the provisions of paragraph 96, as classified by the collector, and the board was correct in so deciding. Fensterer & Ruhe v. … Seeberger v. Schlesinger ( 152 U. S., 581, 587 ); United States v. Downing ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 337 ; T. D. 31434).

United States v. Washington State Liquor Control Board

34 C.C.P.A. 118 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1946

The Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in affirming the foregoing decision of the board, United States v. E. L. Goodsell Co., 91 Fed. 519 , expressly approved the doctrine therein enunciated. … That contention was discussed and overruled in United States v. Browne Vintners Co., Inc., 34 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 112, C. A. D. 351, Appeal No. 4531, decided concurrently herewith.

Application of John J. Lainson

339 F.2d 252 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 17, 1964

Co. v. … For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 .

United States v. General Hide & Skin Corp.

11 Ct. Cust. 78 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1921

The Board of General Appraisers considered that the case of Kwong Yuen Shing v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 16 ; T. … —Brown & Co. v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 415 ; T. D. 35977); Neuman v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 64 ; T. D. 33310); Chew Hing Lung v. Wise ( 176 U. S., 156 ).

Tinnerman v. Kost

127 F.2d 532 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 27, 1942

Then what, if anything, did you do with respect to making fasteners for The Corcoran-Brown Company? A. … Sincerely yours, The Corcoran Brown Lamp Co., R. Bogart, Chief Impeotor.

United States v. M. & D. Miller, Inc.

41 C.C.P.A. 226 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 23, 1954

It is known specifically in trade as brown Rockingham ware, and is earthenware enameled and tinted, and is not the class of ware commercially known as common brown earthenware. In Masson et als. v. United States, 3 Ct,. … See Cadwalader v. Zeh, 151 U. S. 171 . In Wanamaker v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 93 , T.

United States v. North American Mercantile Co.

14 Ct. Cust. 68 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1926

The Board of General Appraisers, after a hearing, granted-the prayer of said petition. The Government appeals. But one witness, M. … It appears from the record that the testimony was heard by General Appraiser Brown and the decision made and judgment entered by a majority of Board 2, with whom General Appraiser Brown was not sitting.

In re Fleming

109 F.2d 656 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 26, 1940

A method of blending flour, consisting in roasting sesame seed to a golden brown in appearance, in roasting separate from said cereal grains to a golden brown appearance, in thoroughly mixing said seed and grains and thereafter … For the reasons stated herein the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed,.

Edward L. Engelhardt v. Claude I. Judd, Alexander E. Drukker and John H. Biel

369 F.2d 408 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 15, 1966

A similar statement is found in the subsequent case of Brown v. … In stark contrast to the situations in the Brown v. Childs and Rhinevault v.

Morton Foods, Inc. v. The Frito Company

314 F.2d 822 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 20, 1963

The pending infringement action referred to in the above-quoted allegation is Civil Action 9292, The Frito Company v. Morton Foods, Inc., U.S.D.C., W.D. … E.g., Brown & Bigelow v. The International Silver Company, 86 USPQ 460 (Commr., 1950) and Conde Nast Publications, Inc. v. Swann, 127 USPQ 85 (TT&A Bd., 1960).

Thomas Lynn Fields v. Lloyd H. Conover and Robert B. Woodward

443 F.2d 1386 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 1, 1971

We do not think that the foregoing quotation from Robinson or our reliance on it in Brown supports Fields’ apparent view that undue experimentation would be required here. … In re Ahlbrecht, supra, 435 F.2d at 911 ; see also Schriber-Schroth Co. v.

United States v. Bernard

13 Ct. Cust. 444 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 18, 1926

Many decisions of this court and of the Board of General Appraisers are cited in the opinion and the court quoted with approval the following excerpt from the opinion of Smith, Judge, in United States v. … In the case of United States v.

Wilcox v. Danner

53 F.2d 711 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 17, 1931

In the case of Brown et al. v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37 , 23 L. Ed. 200 , the court took judicial' notice that an ice cream freezer was within the common knowledge and use of the people throughout the country. … Brown v. Davis, 116 U. S. 237 , 6 S. Ct. 379 , 29 L. Ed. 659 .

Wo v. United States

15 Ct. Cust. 337 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 5, 1927

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest. We reversed their judgment. … In United States v. Shing Shun & Co., 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 388 , T.

Catton, Neill & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 278 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 31, 1922

See United States v. Boker ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 243 ; T. D. 35472); United States v. American Express Co., (id. 494; T. D. 36124); Brown v. United States (7 id. 309 ; T. D. 36871); Richardson v. … —United States v. Wells (77 Red. 411).