Case law

In re Anhaltzer

48 F.2d 657 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1931

The petition for rehearing was denied by the Board of Appeals. … Stern et al. v. Schroeder et al., 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 670, 36 F. (2d) 515; Stern et al. v. Schroeder et al., 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 690, 36 F. (2d) 518; Beidler v. Caps, 17 C. C. P. A.

United States v. Estate of Boshell

14 Ct. Cust. 273 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 19, 1922

The Board of General Appraisers, now the United States Customs Court, sustained the protest on the authority of its decision rendered November 29, 1922, in Meadows, Wye & Co. v. United States, T. D. 39342, G. A. 8584. … Fabbri v. Murphy, 95 U. S. 191 ; Hartranft v. Oliver, 125 U. S. 525 ; United States v. Burr, 159 U. S. 78 ; United States v. Goodsell Co. 84 Fed. 439 ; Mosle v. Bidwell, 130 Fed. 334 .

In re McKellin

529 F.2d 1324 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1976

Our analysis should not be confined to the board’s reasoning alone since we review the decision of the board on the stated ground of rejection and not merely its reasoning in support of that decision. Hunt v. … See Schnick v. Fenn, 277 F.2d 935 , 938 n. 2, 47 CCPA 1174, 1178 n. 3 (1960).

David Crystal, Inc. v. Soo Valley Co.

471 F.2d 1245 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 26, 1973

This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board 1 dismissing an opposition proceeding. … . § 1051 (a)(1), requires an applicant for registration to specify, inter alia, “the goods in connection with which the mark is used * * See also Trademark Rule 2.33(a) (1) (v) ; 4 Call-man, Unfair Competition, Trademarks

In Re Hargraves

53 F.2d 900 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 17, 1931

Nine claims were attached to the application, all of which were rejected by the Examiner and by the Board of Appeals. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

In re ATV Network Ltd.

552 F.2d 925 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 31, 1977

KASHIWA, Judge. 1 This is an appeal by ATV Network Limited from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board) affirming the examiner’s refusal to register its mark. We reverse. … While we appreciate that this is necessarily a subjective conclusion, we note our earlier opinion in a strikingly similar case, viz., Alpha Corp. v.

Frederick F. Blicke v. Gino R. Treves

241 F.2d 718 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1957

Walker on Patents, § 141a; Hunter v. Strikeman, 13 App.D.C. 214, 226 ; Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App.D.C. 86, 92 ; Linde-meyr v. Hoffman, 18 App.D.C. 1, 5 ; Roe v. Hanson, 19 App.D.C. 559, 564 .” … Kyrides v. Bruson, 102 F.2d 416 , 26 C.C.P.A., Patents, 986; Chittick v. Lyons, 104 F.2d 818 , 26 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1382; Muskat v. Schmelkes, 140 F.2d 984 , 31 C.C.P.A., Patents, 837; Kvalnes v.

Smith & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 121 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 26, 1921

In the analogous case of Goodenough Horse-Shoe Manufacturing Co. v. Rhode Island Horse-Shoe Co. ( 154 U. … To the same effect was the ruling of this court in the case oFougera & Co. v. United States ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls., 284, 286 ; T.

United States v. Tiffany & Co.

10 Ct. Cust. 247 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 21, 1920

The protest was sustained by the Board of General Appraisers, and an order was issued by the board to the collector directing him "to reliquidate on the number of lire mentioned in the entry at the value certified to by the … The cases cited by the board-Cramer v. Arthur ( 102 U. S., 612 ); Hadden v. Merritt ( 115 U. S., 25 ); and United States v. Klingenberg ( 153 U.

Cislak v. Wagner

215 F.2d 275 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 15, 1954

See Sloan v. … In the light of the facts herein appearing, the position taken by the board finds support in previous rulings of the court. See Land v. Dreyer, 155 F.2d 383 , 33 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1108, and Field v.

Grasselli v. Dewing

534 F.2d 306 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 6, 1976

as a whole, citing Patterson v. … As we recognized in Young v.

United States v. Petry Co.

11 Ct. Cust. 240 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1922

In the case of Dutton v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 460, 466 ; T. … D. 37781); also Wakem & McLaughlin v. United States ( 10 Ct. Cust. Appls., 24 ; T. D. 38259).

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-.

Ishida v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 415 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1923

D. 36870 (Mitsui & Co. et al. v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 307 ). 9. … See United States v. Oberle ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 527 ; T. D. 31545); United States v. Quong (5 id. 198; T. D. 34326); United States v. Jaehne (8 id. 307; T. D. 37585).

Urquhart v. Paschke

69 F.2d 535 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 19, 1934

something of practical use ’ for extinguishing a fire ‘ coupled with the knowledge that the thing will work practically for the intended purpose ’ and, therefore, was not a reduction to practice ”, the case of Sherwood v. … We, therefore, feel constrained to disagree with the board’s finding.

In re Aller

220 F.2d 454 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 22, 1955

Co. v. Coe, 69 App. D. C. 217, 99 F. (2d) 986; Allen et al. v. Coe, 77 App. D. C. 324, 135 F. (2d) 11. … The Board of Appeals affirmed this ground of rejection.

Thompson v. Dunn

166 F.2d 443 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 6, 1948

See Bastian v. Champ, 34 App. D. C. 225, 1910 C. D. 321; Peterson v. Thomas, 56 App. D. C. 113, 10 F. (2d) 908; George O. Beidler v. Arthur W. Caps and Ivan E. Leininger, 17 C. C. P. A. … See also, Stapleton v. Kinney, 18 App. D. C. 394, 1901 C. D. 414; Hawkins v. Ward, 1912 C. D. 50; Clement v. Roberts, 51 App. D. C. 29, 1921 C. D. 243; Russell v. Sisson, 55 App. D. C. 401, 1925 C. D. 274; Brogden v.

Application of Manuel F. Leonor

395 F.2d 801 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 6, 1968

Since the board’s decision violates the intent and spirit of 35 U.S.C. § 103 , we reverse. … Indeed, this seems to be a clear case in which the examiner and the board were unable “to resist the temptation to read into the prior art the teachings of the invention in issue.” Graham v.

Walther v. Vanderveer

64 F.2d 540 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 12, 1933

Hatfield, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is a motion to dismiss without prej udice an appeal in an interference proceeding from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office awarding … United States v. The Minnesota and Northwestern Railroad Co., 18 How. 241; Donallan v. Tannage Patent Co., 79 Fed. 385 ; 4 C. J. 588, § 2400. We find here no such equitable considerations.

In re Winkhaus

527 F.2d 637 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 18, 1975

Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co., 336 U.S. 271 , 69 S.Ct. 535 , 93 L.Ed. 672 , 80 USPQ 451 and In re Cook and Merigold, 169 USPQ 298 , 58 CCPA 1049, 439 F.2d 730 . … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed.