Case law

United States v. Field

7 Ct. Cust. 430 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1917

The foregoing decision of the board was affirmed by the United .'States Circuit Court, Northern District of California, and the case thereupon was appealed to this court, and is reported as United States v. … American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington ( 141 U. S., 468 .)

Sherman v. Hope

161 F.2d 263 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1947

Mabon v. John Q. Sherman, Etc., Patent Appeal No. 5264, decided concurrently herewith. … One of the earlier patents referred,to in this quotation from the board’s opinion is contained in the record in the Mabon v. Sherman interference hereinbefore referred to.

Thomas v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 51 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 21, 1913

This statute was construed by the Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Ferry & Co. v. … See United States v. Habicht ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 53 ; T. D. 31031) and cases cited; United States v. Shallus ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 332 ; T. D. 32074).

United States v. Horrax

1 Ct. Cust. 142 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 5, 1911

Magone v. Wiederer ( 159 U. S., 555 ), Meyer et al. v. Cadwalader (89 Fed. Rep., 963). … Morrison et al. v. United States (107 Fed. Rep., 113). As these views seem to us to be decisive of the case, the decision of the board 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.

Delapenha v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 18 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 18, 1915

D. 33018), following Mihalo-vitch v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 98 ; T. D. 33372); 0.16 to 0.20 per cent, Abstract 32400 (T. D. 33433). … Mihalovitch v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 98 ; T. D. 33372). Tbe decision of tbe board is affirmed.

John O. Paivinen v. Eugene A. Sands

399 F.2d 697 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 14, 1968

That decision is the result of the board’s consideration of the case on remand from this court in the first appeal, Paivinen v. Sands, 339 F.2d 217 , 52 CCPA 906, 1030 (1964). … Conner v. Joris, 241 F.2d 944 , 44 CCPA 772; Sellner v. Solloway, 267 F.2d 321 , 46 CCPA 897; Paivinen v. Sands, supra.

Application of Abram H. Blaisdell

242 F.2d 779 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 29, 1957

The board adequately presented the background of this proceeding as follows: "The instant application was involved in an interference No. 83,-587, Blaisdell v. Allen v. … He cites General Motors Corp. v.

In re Altenpohl

500 F.2d 1151 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 15, 1974

Shull Perforating Co., Inc. v. Cavins, 94 F.2d 357 (9th Cir. 1938); Weller Mfg. Co. v. Wen Products, Inc., 121 F.Supp. 198 (N.D.Ill.1954), aff’d, 231 F.2d 795 (7th Cir. 1956); Vernay Laboratories, Inc. v. … . & Pat.App.1974); and International Paper Co. v. Fiberboard Corp., 181 PTCJ A-9 (D.Del.1974).

In re Shetty

566 F.2d 81 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 17, 1977

This appeal is from that portion of the July 30, 1976, decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) rejecting claims 2-5, 51, and 52 in application serial No. 171,736, filed August 13, 1971, … R^ « H, lower alkyl, halogen, hydroxy, alkoxy, amino or substituted amino, trifluoromethyl, sulfamyl, nitro, phenyl R8* V ’S.O* Rn- R12 are any of n » 0 to 4 m « 0 to 4

Fensterer & Voss Inc. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 105 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 9, 1924

The importer contends that the case of United States v. Fondeville, supra, requires that the merchandise be classified under the latter paragraph. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Bill Rivers Trailers, Inc. v. Thermo King Corp.

478 F.2d 1243 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 24, 1973

See AMF, Inc. v. American Leisure Products, Inc., 474 F.2d 1403 (CCPA 1973) and cases cited therein. Furthermore, we cannot agree with Í» appellant’s assertions regarding the portion of the trademark. … See Mead Johnson & Co. v. American Home Products Corp., 461 F.2d 1381 , 59 CCPA 1082 (1972) and Consolidated Cigar Corp. v. M. Landaw Ltd., 474 F.2d 1402 (CCPA 1973).

Reed v. Cislak

175 F.2d 972 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1949

Patterson et al. v. Clements et al., 30 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1262, 136 F. (2d) 1002, 58 USPQ 539 ; Kear v. Roder, 28 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 774, 115 F. (2d) 810, 47 USPQ 458 ; Collins v. Olsen, 26 C. C. P. A. … Sneed v. McConkey, 22 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1151, 76 F. (2d) 422, 25 U. S. Pat. Q. 173.

Kresge Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 396 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 13, 1922

Some reliance in this aspect of the case was placed by the board, and is by the Government, on the decision of this court in Bischoff v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 138 ; T. … In its opinion the Board of General Appraisers pointed out, among other things, and the Government avers likewise here, that this court in United States v. Gluck ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 11 ; T.

In re Kluter

92 F.2d 906 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1937

Tbe board cited one more reference, McClevey, 1,396,515, of November 8,1921. … (Patents) 1114, 47 F. (2d) 970, we quoted from the leading case on this question, Potts v. Creager, 155 U.

Bayersdorfer v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 66 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1916

United States v. Bowen ( 100 U. S., 508, 513 ); Arthur v. Dodge ( 101 U. S., 34 ); Vietor v. Arthur ( 104 U. S., 498 ); Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Sulzberger ( 157 U. S., 1, 33 ). … v.

United States v. Fragele Bros.

13 Ct. Cust. 144 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1925

We have recently held in Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 17 , T. D. 40861: The findings of fact provided for in said section SOI should be measured by the same rule. … But the board" found such a condition did not exist here. Counsel for the Government cite Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust.

In re Rosen

673 F.2d 388 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 11, 1982

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) sustaining the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of appellant’s 1 de *389 sign as claimed in application serial No. 875,918, … The board, in affirming the rejection, added: The essential core of appellant’s design, when viewed as a. whole, is as stated hereinbefore, a round glass top table with three V-shaped notched legs which receive and support

In re Ferrero

479 F.2d 1395 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 21, 1973

Upon review of the record, we are constrained to disagree with the board’s reasoning. … Compare Lever Brothers Co. v. Producers Chemical Service, 283 F.2d 879 , 48 CCPA 744 (1960). The very fact of calling to mind may indicate that the mind is distinguishing, rather than being confused by, two marks.

United States v. Steeb

6 Ct. Cust. 275 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 24, 1915

Merchandise corresponding to that here considered was before the court in Brauss v. United States ( 120 Fed., 1017 ). … See also Rattan & Cane Co. v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 1 ; T. D. 35247). The decision of the board is affirmed-.