Case law

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.

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 Clairol Inc.

457 F.2d 509 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 6, 1972

The board’s opinion appears at 161 USPQ, 500 (1969). Familiarity vvith that opinion is assumed. … Kiekhaefer Corp. v. Willys-Overland Motors, Inc., 43 CCPA 1013, 236 F.2d 423 , 111 USPQ 105 (1956).

United States v. Hanover Vulcanite Co.

4 Ct. Cust. 503 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 18, 1913

This case in principle is within the rule laid down by this court in United States v. Eytinge ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 266 ; T. D. 33486). … The conclusion of the board was sustained in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New Yok. See United States v. Knauth, apparently only reported in T. D. 27769.

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).

James C. Fang v. Elinor M. Hankins and William D. Emmons

399 F.2d 262 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 18, 1968

The board also observed this court’s decision in Blicke v. … Reiners v. Mehltretter, 236 F.2d 418 , 43 CCPA 1019 (1956); Muskat v. Schmel-kes, 140 F.2d 984 , 31 CCPA 837 (1944).

Downing & Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 364 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1911

Goldman v. United States (87 Fed Rep., 193); Nairn Linoleum Co. v. United States (151 Fed. Rep., 955). The importers also cite the case, G. A. 1128 (T. D. 12356). … The cases are Blumenthal v. United States (144 Fed. Rep., 384) and Seeberger v. Cahn ( 137 U. S., 95 ).

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

Dawson v. Martin

111 F.2d 300 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1940

Deibel v. Heise et al., supra. The counts here involved are broad and there is no ambiguity in their terms. They were broadly construed by the Primary Examiner and by the Board of Appeals. … Likewise we have held that where the Board of Appeals construes, counts narrowly in order to avoid prior art, we will give the same construction. Kauffman, II v. Etten et al., 25 C. C. P. A.

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.

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.

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

Frey v. Wagner

87 F.2d 212 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 25, 1937

Appert v. Brownsville Plate Glass Co. (C. C.) 144 F. 115 ; Benjamin W. Jones v. Clarence T. Evans, 46 F.(2d) 197 , 18 C.C. P.A. (Patents) 866; Altorfer & Dehle v. Haag, 74 F.(2d) 129 , 22 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 806. … MacLaren v. Joseph J. Stoetzel, 38 F. (2d) 125, 17 C.C.P.A: (Patents) 857; Nystrom & Landwehr v. Mancuso, 64 F.(2d) 698 , 20 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 934.

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.

Application of Limestone Products Corporation of America

312 F.2d 825 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 13, 1963

The decisions of this court in In re Deister Concentrator Company, Inc., 289 F.2d 496 , 48 CCPA 952, and Weiss Noodle Co. v. … The decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is affirmed. Affirmed.

In re Gyurik

596 F.2d 1012 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 12, 1979

Commissioner of Patents v. … In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391 , 50 CCPA 1084, 1097, 137 USPQ 43 , 51 (1963); accord, Commissioner of Patents v.

Horstman Co. v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 458 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1915

The board overruled the protest and affirmed the decision of the collector. … D. 23555); they are woven into cloth (Jules & Hugo Rosenberg v. United States, 141 Fed., 379 ); Hirsch v. United States, 167 Fed., 309 ). See also Tyler v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 158 ; T. D. 35433).

In re Saether

492 F.2d 849 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 28, 1974

[Citing Magnavox Company v. Muter Co. (Rola Company, Inc.), 160 F.Supp. 169 (N.D.Ohio 1956).] OPINION We disagree with the board’s statement, that the term “platform” imparts no distinguishing features or structure. … In support of its characterization of the differences between appellant’s invention and the prior art as “no real improvement or advance beyond the physical requirements of the users,” the board cites Magnavox Company v.

Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Department of Transportation

484 F.2d 1385 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 13, 1973

Nevertheless, despite the misconstruction by the board of the contract provision, we affirm the board’s decision granting the petition to cancel the trademark. … In our view the documents of record and testimony of witnesses support the board’s conclusion that V-Ring was used by both FAA and Scanwell to describe the antenna array.

United States v. Carr

11 Ct. Cust. 345 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1922

It may be noted here that the decision now upon appeal follows a former decision of the board involving similar merchandise, in the case of John V. Carr, T. D. 38480 (G. … In United States v.