Case law

United States v. McGibbon

7 Ct. Cust. 290 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 2, 1916

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest upon authority of United States v. Hamburger Levine Co. ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 217 ; T. D. 34382). … See also Krusi v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 168 ; T. D. 31213). The court agrees with the board that that case rules this.

In Re Lobdell

167 F.2d 634 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 6, 1948

In re Britton, 115 F.2d 249 , 28 C.C.P.A., Patents, 726; Vickery v. Barnhart, 118 F.2d 578 , 28 C.C.P.A., Patents, 979. … General Electric Co. v. Jewel Incandescent Lamp Co. et al., 326 U.S. 242, 249 , 66 S.Ct. 81 , 90 L.Ed. 43 .

Robert Hall Clothes, Inc. v. Mary Lindsay Studds

286 F.2d 615 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1961

Revere Paint Company v. Twentieth Century Chemical Company, 150 F.2d 135 , 32 CCPA 1096, and L. J. Mueller Furnace Co. v. United Conditioning Corp., 222 F.2d 755 , 42 CCPA 932. … The decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is affirmed. Affirmed.

Southern Enterprises, Inc. D.B.A the Whopper-Burger Shop v. Burger King of Florida, Inc.

419 F.2d 460 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 8, 1970

Those arguments; however, do not convince us of error in the board’s decision. … Salem Commodities, Inc. v. Miami Margarine Co., 44 CCPA 932, 244 F.2d 729 , 114 USPQ 124 (1957). The decision is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 . Reported at 153 USPQ 688 . 2 . Registration No. 791,918, issued June 29, 1965. 3 .

Food Specialty Co. v. Kal Kan Foods, Inc.

487 F.2d 1389 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 20, 1973

Burroughs Wellcome & Co. v. Mezger Pharmacal Co., 228 F.2d 243 , 43 C.C.P.A. 703 (1955); Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 432 F.2d 1400 , 58 C.C.P.A. 735 (1970). The board correctly so held. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. .

Loy W. Sockman and Elliott W. Brady v. Robert C. Switzer and Richard A. Ward

379 F.2d 996 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 22, 1967

In Switzer v. Sockman, 333 F.2d 935 , 52 CCPA 759, this court reversed the board, finding that the 484 application was timely filed. … See Smith v. Wehn, supra; Rajchman v. Lockhart, 339 F.2d 233 , 52 CCPA 853.

Illfelder v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 109 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1910

Wanamaker v. Cooper (69 Fed. Rep., 465; Thanhauser v. United States (159 Fed. Rep., 228). … United States v. Strauss (136 Fed. Rep., 185-187), reversing United States v. Strauss (128 Fed. Rep., 473); United States v. Cattus (167 Fed. Rep., 532); Thanhauser v. United States (159 Fed. Rep., 228-232).

Steinberg Brothers, Inc. v. New England Overall Co., Inc.

377 F.2d 1004 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1967

Neumann & Co. v. Bon-Ton Auto Upholstery, Inc., 326 F.2d 799 , 51 CCPA 934 (1964) and R. Neumann & Co. v. … Byron & Sons, Inc. v. Stein Bros. Mfg. Co., 377 F.2d 1001 , 54 CCPA -.

Hester v. Allgeier

687 F.2d 464 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 2, 1982

Weil v. Fritz, 601 F.2d 551 , 202 USPQ 447 (CCPA 1979). … With respect to evidence reviewable by the board, in Stoudt v. Guggenheim, 651 F.2d 760 , 764 n.8, 210 USPQ 359 , 364 n.10 (Cust.

In Re Ridgway

76 F.2d 602 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1935

(Patents) 1046; and General Electric Co. v. De Forest Radio Co. (C. C. … We find no error in the decision of the Board of Appeals, and the same is affirmed. Affirmed.

United States v. Woodward-Newhouse Co.

11 Ct. Cust. 284 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1922

For convenient reference, we again cite authorities referred to in the case of United States v. Kuttroff, supra: Marriott v. Brune ( 9 How. 50 U. S. 619); Saxonville Mills v. Russell ( 116 U. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Consolidated Cigar Corp. v. M. Landaw Ltd.

474 F.2d 1402 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 29, 1973

This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 167 USPQ 372 (1970), involving the application of M. … See Mead Johnson & Co. v. American Home Products Corp., 461 F.2d 1381 , 59 CCPA 1082 (1972).

Larzelere & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 510 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 12, 1915

Waterman v. Bailey ( 111 Mich., 571 ). But to be effective the method of taking the appeal must be pointed out. … The Board of General Appraisers in the present case, while filing no opinion, held that such service was sufficient, and we think the decision should be affirmed.

Powermatics, Inc. v. Globe Roofing Products Co., Inc.

341 F.2d 127 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1965

Brewster-Ideal Chocolate Co. v. Dairy Maid Confectionary Co., 62 F.2d 844 , 20 CCPA 848; B. R. Baker Company v. Lebow Brothers, 150 F.2d 580 , 32 CCPA 1206. … Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Old Colony Shoe Co., 82 F.2d 709 , 23 CCPA 1039; B. R. Baker Co. v. Lebow Brothers, supra; Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Minnesota Linseed Oil Paint Co., 229 F.2d 448 , 43 CCPA 746.

Application of George E. Myers

410 F.2d 420 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1969

Co., Inc. et al. v. … In this respect, this case is not unlike Kropa v.

In re Custer

173 F.2d 226 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 1, 1949

The board agreed with that finding. … Martin v. Chapman and Littleford, 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1187, 71 F. (2d) 174, 22 U. S. Pat. Q. 50.

Harold S. Hemstreet v. William S. Rohland

433 F.2d 1403 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 3, 1970

Daley v. Wiltshire, 293 F.2d 677 , 49 CCPA 719 (1961). … Kuppenbender v. Riszdorfer, 104 F.2d 791, 795-796 , 26 CCPA 1436, 1440-1442 (1939); Wirkler v. Perkins, 245 F.2d *1407 502, 504-505, 44 CCPA 1005, 1008-1009 (1957).

Burlington Venetian Blind Co. v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 374 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 27, 1911

The board, on appeal, overruled the protest and sustained the assessment. … Stern et al v. United States (105 Fed. Rep., 937); Hiller et al v. United States (106 Fed. Rep. 73).

In re Allatt

121 F.2d 545 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 3, 1941

Appellant, proceeding under Patent Office rule 42, elected to prosecute the claims in group I, retaining those in group II for the purpose of appeal to the board. … The Supreme Court of the United States in its decision in the case of Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 303 U.

Mattor v. Coolegem

530 F.2d 1391 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 18, 1976

As we stated in Koval v. … See Land v. Regan, 342 F.2d 92 , 52 CCPA 1048, 144 U.S.P.Q. 661 (1965).