Case law

Luzier Incorporated v. Marlyn Chemical Co., Inc.

442 F.2d 973 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1971

Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 158 USPQ 676 (T.T.A.B.1968). … On May 6, 1971, we affirmed the decision of the board in the FORWARD case, Procter and Gamble Co. v. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 440 F.2d 1022 , 58 CCPA. For similar reasons, the decision of the board here is reversed.

In re Glass

492 F.2d 1228 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 28, 1974

The right of the Patent Office to rely on prior United States patents as “prior art” under § 102(e) is pursuant to the rationale of the case of Alexander Milburn Co. v. … The board was right in refusing to consider the patents cited by appellant and we, likewise, refuse to consider them.

Application of Hehr Manufacturing Company

279 F.2d 526 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 6, 1960

The board’s interpretation thereof is reflected in the following excerpt : “The record shows that applicant marks its products by sticking gummed labels thereon. … “Certain of the printed advertisements, e. g. see Exhibits V, W and X, further illustrate Petitioner’s windows with a red sticker thereon, but without any secondary mark or composite mark evident in said stickers.

United States v. American Shipping Co.

13 Ct. Cust. 346 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1925

The doctrine is appropriately stated in Hollender v. Magone, 149 U. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Hauptman v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 295 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 21, 1925

It is claimed by counsel for the appellant that the board erred in its finding of facts and conclusions of law. … See The Linen Thread Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 301 , T. D. 41220, decided concurrently herewith. The judgment is affirmed.

Wright v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 528 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 28, 1916

The Board of General Appraisers under the authority of the decision of this court in Wright & Graham v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 453 ; T. … In such status of view the duty of the board and this court is well expressed by the board in G. A. 7015 (T.

United States v. Fensterer

12 Ct. Cust. 410 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 17, 1924

No evidence was introduced at the hearing of the protests before the Board of General Appraisers. … —United States v. Lippmann et al. ( 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 336 ; T. D. 39145) and cases cited. That duty is likewise imposed upon the collector by section 499 of the tariff act of 1922.

United States v. Baxter

16 Ct. Cust. 257 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 11, 1928

American Bead Co. v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 18 , T. D. 36259; United States v. Flory & Co., 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 156 ,T. D. 42219. … See United States v. Biggs, 203 U. S. 136 ; United States v. American Shipping Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 346 , T. D. 41254.

Driggs v. Clark

140 F.2d 994 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 4, 1944

Vidaver v. Sherman, 54 App. D. C. 173, 295 Fed. 994 , 325 O. G. 221 . … The decision of the board is affirmed.

Meyer v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 247 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 17, 1912

cooking * * * the strained liquid or juice of fruit after being boiled with sugar until it becomes a stiffened mass when cooled; the stiffened juice of boiled meat, sweetened and flavored, as calves’feet jelly. *249 Bogle v. … The decision of the board is therefore affirmed.

Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 1 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1916

The first was Tilge & Co. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 97 ; T. … Such articles are, in our opinion, finished manufactures, and the board was correct in so finding. The case of Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States ( 171 U. S., 210 ) was cited in support of this ruling.

In re Delancey

177 F.2d 377 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 30, 1949

See Scheinman v. Zalkind, 27 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1354, 112 F. (2d) 1017, 46 USPQ 141 . So, we must assume that appellant finally acquiesced in the board’s holding that the recited statement is functional only. … G. 3 ; Scheinman v. Zalkind, supra; In re DeLancey, 34 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 849, 159 F. (2d) 737, 72 USPQ 477 .

Lang v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 464 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 11, 1913

That case presented the question *465 as to whether, .spruce boards and planks, planed on one side, tongued and grooved, of varying dimensions, were entitled to free entry as “ sawed boards, planks, deals, and other lumber … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. Wertheimer

4 Ct. Cust. 338 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1913

The Pas-savant case was appealed to the Circuit Court, and Platt, Judge, distinctly held that the board should have followed the rule prescribed by T. D. 19945 and United States v. … Accordingly the decision of the board was reversed. Trefousse v. United States; Passavant v. United States ( 144 Fed., 708 ); affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals ( 154 Fed., 1005 ).

Agency Canadian Car & Foundry Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 19 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 17, 1921

The present protest was submitted to the Board of General Appraisers upon testimony including the record in the former case, and the board overruled it. From that decision the importers appeal. … This court has held in the case of Thomas & Pierson v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 51, 54 ; T.

In re McConnell

40 F.2d 567 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1930

Claims 1 and 3,17111011 were allowed by the board, read: 1. … In Parke-Davis & Co. v.

Food Specialty Co., Inc. v. Catz American Co., Inc.

433 F.2d 817 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 25, 1970

The decision of the board herein was rendered Jan. 12, 1968, prior to our decision in Food Specialty Co. v. Standard Products Co., 406 F.2d 1397 , 56 CCPA 1005 (Mar. 13, 1969). … The decision of the board is reversed. Reversed.

Application of Friedrich Gruschwitz and Albert Fritz

320 F.2d 401 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 26, 1963

“[If the appeal be from the decision of the Commissioner in a case of interference, the reasons may be-as follows:] “The Commissioner erred in-awarding priority of invention to-William Brown. *411 “The Commissioner erred … Honigbaum, 54 F.2d 147 , 19 CCPA 773; Mas v. Root, 54 F.2d 435 , 19 CCPA 819; Southgate v. Greene, 57 F.2d 374 , 19 CCPA 1129; Derby Oil Co. v.

Tanners' Council of America, Inc. v. Gary Industries, Inc., D.B.A. Acco Products

440 F.2d 1404 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 13, 1971

The board, in concluding lack of standing, relied heavily upon this court’s opinion in Pocahontas Operators Association v. Carter Coal Company, 160 F.2d 114 , 34 CCPA 926, 73 USPQ 51 (1947). … In Singer Manufacturing Co. v.

Prince Dog and Cat Food Company D. B. A. San Antonio Canning Co. v. Central Nebraska Packing Co. D. B. A. Star Sales Company

305 F.2d 904 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 25, 1962

Goheen Corp. v. White Co., 126 F.2d 481 , 29 CCPA 926. … See Breese v. Tampax Sales Corp., 102 F.2d 808 , 26 CCPA 994. The decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, insofar as it dismissed the petition, is, therefore, affirmed.