Case law

Bernhardt v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 36 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 18, 1913

The board found that the appellants had failed to establish by a preponderance of the testimony that the classification made by the importer was incorrect. Under the previous holdings of this court in Knauth v. … The decision of the board is affirmed.

Parker v. Frilette

462 F.2d 544 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 13, 1972

Eurwits v. … See, Brinker v. Kray, Patent Appeal No. 8734, decided June 1, 1972. The board found Parker has not done SO' here, and we must agree.

In re Haller

161 F.2d 280 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1947

Counsel for appellant cites numerous decisions, such as, for example, Ajax Metal Co. v. Brady Brass Co., 155 Fed. 409 ; Ludlum Steel Co. v. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is •affirmed.

United States v. Richardson

13 Ct. Cust. 280 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 21, 1925

. * • * * The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Rose'vear Enterprises, Inc.

592 F.2d 1180 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 1, 1979

Second, op-poser states that the board relied upon an improper side-by-side comparison of the marks and that the board was unduly impressed by the lack of actual confusion. … Bielzoff Products Co. v. White Horse Distillers, Ltd., 107 F.2d 583 , 27 CCPA 722, 43 USPQ 397 (1939). We are satisfied that the board properly considered these principles in reaching its decision.

Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 331 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1914

A similar ruling of tbe board upon frozen balibut appears in T. D. 25430. … The Perry case was appealed by the Government to the Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, where the board’s decision was affirmed upon the reasoning above set out. United States v. Perry ( 171 Fed., 303 ).

Wallace L. Richardson, George J. Kautsky and Maurice R. Barusch v. Shirl E. Cook and Thomas O. Sistrunk

442 F.2d 1398 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1971

Blicke v. Treves, 241 F.2d 718 , 44 CCPA 753 (1957). … Gordon v. Hubbard, 347 F.2d 1001 , 52 CCPA 1598 (1965); White v. Lemmerman, 341 F.2d 110 , 52 CCPA 968 (1965).

Prahl v. Redman

117 F.2d 1018 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 24, 1941

However, before we would be warranted in reversing the decision of the board upon this point, we must be convinced that the board erred in its finding. In the case of Daley v. Trube, 24 C. C. P. A. … For the reasons stated herein, the decision of the Board of Appeals is

Bruce J. Watkins and Glenn D. Johnson v. Charles E. Wakefield, Jr.

443 F.2d 1207 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 1, 1971

board committed reversible error. … Compare Keizer v. Bradley, 270 F.2d 396 , 47 CCPA 709 (1959); Radio Corp. of America v. Philco Corp., 201 F.Supp. 135 (E.D.Pa.1961). Hudson v.

Stone & Downer Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 337 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1925

We think the board’s decision, was correct. … In Union Food Products Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 343 , T.

Ivar Jepson v. Robert E. Coleman, Jr., and Calvin D. MacCracken

314 F.2d 533 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 13, 1963

The board found that appellees did have the right to make counts 1-5. … See Brand v. Thomas, 96 F.2d 301 ; 25 CCPA 1053; Crome v. Morrogh, 239 F.2d 390 , 44 CCPA 704.

United States v. Billin & Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 286 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 12, 1919

When the caso came on for hearing before the board no evidence-ivas offered by the importers and the case was apparently submitted to the board on the report and papers forwarded by the collector to-the board after the protest … In the case of United States v. Shallus ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls., 168 ;. T.

Robert N. Noyce v. Jack St. Clair Kilby, Jack St. Clair Kilby v. Robert N. Noyce

416 F.2d 1391 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 29, 1970

Binstead v. Littmann, 242 F.2d 766 , 44 CCPA 839 (1957). … See Smith v. Wehn, 318 F.2d 325 , 50 CCPA 1544 and Dreyfus and Harrison v. Sternau, 357 F.2d 411 , 53 CCPA 1050.

United States v. Francklyn

4 Ct. Cust. 54 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 21, 1913

No court decision directly in point is cited; but in Rice v. United States ( 123 Fed., 195 ) the correctness of the Government’s present *58 -contention was assumed, and Saxonville Mills v. Russell ( 116 U. … The opinion of the board was in accord with the foregoing, but the -collector’s action was reversed by the board on grounds not stated in the opinion, presumably on the ground that the proper divisor to be used in ascertaining

Motorola, Inc. v. Griffiths Electronics, Inc.

317 F.2d 397 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 16, 1963

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the opposition, 132 USPQ 565 and 568. … Inc. v. Mezger Pharmacal Co., Inc., 228 F.2d 243 , 43 CCPA 703, also involved a three-letter suffix, “-fax.”

Jany Renz, Jean Pierre Bourquin, Guido Gamboni and Gustav Schwarb v. Robert Michel Jacob and Gilbert Louis Regnier

326 F.2d 792 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1964

Appellees, citing Schweyer v. Thomas, 68 F.2d 953 , 21 CCPA 859; Robie v. Carlton, 171 F.2d 310 , 36 CCPA 739; Braren v. Horner, 47 F.2d 358 , 18 CCPA 971; and Dreyfus v. … Appellees, citing Malm et al. v. Schneider, 101 F.2d 201 , 26 CCPA 783; George T. Southgate v. Albert E. Greene, 57 F.2d .374, 19 CCPA 1129; Knight v. King, 82 F.2d 817 , 23 CCPA 1074; and Bac v.

Application of Arnold N. Johnson

282 F.2d 370 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 10, 1960

Columbia in Petrocarbon Ltd. v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed. Reversed. . In Reiners v.

United States v. Waterhouse

1 Ct. Cust. 353 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 27, 1911

Prior to the Ranlett case the principle of segregation therein enunciated seems to have been recognized both by the board and the courts. See United States v. Brewer (92 Fed. Rep., 343); Weil v. United States (115 Fed. … Rep., 592); United States v. Helmrath (135 Fed. Rep., 912); United States. v Myers (140 Fed. Rep., 648). The case of the United States v.

In re Sibley

88 F.2d 960 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 5, 1937

Among such authorities are Corona Cord Tire Company v. Dovan Chemical Corporation, 276 U. S. 358 ; United Chromium, Inc. v. … California Spray Chemical Co., 268 Fed. 201 ; Celluloid Manuf'g Co. v. American Zylonite Co. et al., 35 Fed. 301 ; King et al. v. Anderson et al., 90 Fed. 500 , and Diversey Corporation v. Hertz, 13 Fed. Supp. 410.

Klipstein v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 510 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1913

Matheson v. United States ( 90 Fed., 276 ); Newman v. Arthur ( 109 U. S., 132 ); Pickhardt v. Merritt ( 132 U. S., 252 ); Cassett v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 465 ; T. D. 32225). … The decision of the board is therefore reversed.