Case law

Ralston Purina Company v. Midwest Cordage Company, Inc.

373 F.2d 1015 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 16, 1967

The board’s analysis of the foregoing led it to dismiss the petition for cancellation. … In Menendez v. Holt, 128 U.S. 514 , 9 S.Ct. 143 , 32 L.Ed. 526 (1888), the Court commented on McLean v.

Broderick & Bascom Rope Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

531 F.2d 1068 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 8, 1976

CTS Corp. v. Cronstroms Manufacturing, Inc., 515 F.2d 780 , 185 USPQ 773 (Oust. & Pat.App. 1975); General Shoe Corp. v. Lerner Bros. Mfg. Co., 254 F.2d 154 , 45 CCPA 872, 117 USPQ 281 (1958). … Crown Radio Corp. v. Soundscriber Corp., 506 F.2d 1392 , 184 USPQ 221 (Oust. & Pat. App. 1974); United Merchants & Manufacturers, Inc. v. R. A. Products, Inc., 404 F.2d 399 , 56 CCPA 751, 159 USPQ 714 (1968).

The General Electric Company Limited v. Jenaer Glaswerk Schott & Gen.

341 F.2d 152 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1965

General Electric Co., 304 F.2d 688 , 49 CCPA 1186, in which we found no likelihood of confusion from the concurrent use of VULCAN and VULKENE on goods sold to technical users, as is the case here, and Republic Steel Corp. v. … Since we see no likelihood of confusion, and this being the only issue, the de-cisión of the board is reversed.

Vickery v. Barnhart

118 F.2d 578 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 31, 1941

Oldroyd v. Morgan, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1111, 57 F. (2d) 358. … In the case of Permutit Co. v. Graver Corp., 284 U.

United States v. Jacobson & Sons Co.

10 Ct. Cust. 191 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 23, 1920

The board may have concluded it ought to adopt one of these definitions. There was, however, as already stated, no effort to prove commercial designation. … United States v. Troy Laundry Machinery Co. ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 430 ; T.

Neumair v. Malocsay

77 F.2d 622 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1935

Slattery v. Larner, 36 F.(2d) 298 , 17 C. C. P. A. [Patents] 725.” We think the quoted excerpt has particular application to the issues here involved. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed. Reversed.

General Electric Co. v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 157 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1916

Upon the hearing before the Board of General Appraisers the board overruled these protests upon the ground that there was no proof sustaining the precise allegationsnnade. The record in General Electric Co. v. … In Carter v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 64, 69 ; T.

In re Curley

158 F.2d 300 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 9, 1946

Accordingly, the board affirmed its original decision rejecting the appealed claims. … See Robins v. Wettlaufer, 23 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 952, 81 F. (2d) 882, 28 USPQ 470 .

In re Duggan

124 F.2d 215 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 29, 1941

The solicitor states that the appellants did not raise this question before the examiner or the board and that this fact accounts for the failure of the board and the examiner to make mention of it. … Co. v. Coe, 72 App. D. C. 183, 113 F. (2d) 512.

Application of Franklin W. Herrick and Louis H. Bock

344 F.2d 713 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 6, 1965

To the extent the references are truly cumulative, the examiner or board can so indicate. … We are reminded of the not wholly inappropriate statement of Judge Hough *717 in Ball & Roller Bearing Co. v. F. C. Sanford Mfg.

Application of Martin N. Ornitz and Ray H. English

376 F.2d 330 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1967

Hazeltine [Research, Inc.] v. Brenner, 382 U.S. 252 , [ 86 S.Ct. 335 , 15 L.Ed.2d 304 ;] 147 USPQ 429 ; In re Harry, 333 F.2d 920 , 51 CCPA 1541. … Appealed claim 1, referred to by the board as representative, is as follows: 1.

Kooi v. DeWitt

546 F.2d 403 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 23, 1976

Anderson v. Scinta, 372 F.2d 523 , 54 CCPA 1269, 152 USPQ 584 (1967). 11 Therefore, the board was without jurisdiction to consider the merits of these contentions. … But see Myers v. Feigelman, 190 USPQ 198 (Bd. of Pat. Int’f.1973) where the board discussed late claiming in the context of a suppression and concealment contention.

In Re American Cyanamid & Chemical Corporation

99 F.2d 964 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1938

In Johnson v. … for some special purpose made chiefly of boards or resembling a -board; as, a blackboard; a bulletin board; a sounding board; a springboard.”

United Merchants and Manufacturers, Inc. v. R. A. Products Incorporated

404 F.2d 399 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 5, 1968

With due regard for the board’s position, we are unable to agree with its reasoning or result. … The United States Time Corp. v. Jacob Tennenbaum, 267 F.2d 327 , 46 CCPA 895. The decision is reversed. Reversed. SMITH, J., participated in the hearing of this case but died before a decision was reached. 1 .

Ciba Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 282 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 21, 1925

In United States v. Fish, 268 U. … In Fish & Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 307 , the rule was distinctly announced that, in cases of this character, we would adopt the rule laid down in United States v. Riebe, 1 Ct. Cust.

In re Clark

97 F.2d 628 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 27, 1938

Interesting cases on the effect of functional statements might be cited such as Automatic Appliance Co. v. McNiece Motor Co., 20 F. (2d) 578; Linville et al. v. … Co. v. Rotary Machine Co. et al., 31 F. (2d) 646. We think that claim 12 should have been allowed and the decision of the Board of Appeals as to it is reversed; as to claim 19 it is affirmed.

United States v. Sherman

6 Ct. Cust. 271 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 24, 1915

Heddon v. Robertson ( 151 U. S., 520 ), United States v. Vandergrift ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 161 ; T. D. 32457). … See also Carter & Son v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 253 ; T. D. 35475). The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Fernand Georges Bac v. Alfred L. Loomis, Andrew Alford v. Alfred L. Loomis, (Two Cases)

252 F.2d 571 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 21, 1958

Townsend v. Smith, 36 F.2d 292 , 17 C.C.P.A., Patents, 647; Cooper v. Hubbell, 53 F.2d 1072 , 19 C.C.P.A., Patents, 790; and Rowe v. Holtz, 55 F.2d 468 , 19 C.C.P.A., Patents, 970. Similarly, in Land v. … Mastoras, 257 U.S. 27 , 42 S.Ct. 20 , 66 L.Ed. 112 ; Williams v. Handschiegl, 48 F.2d 395 , 18 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1176; Taggart v. Shilstone, 55 App.D.C. 154 , 3 F.2d 95 ; and Edison v. Foote, 1871 C.D. 80.

Waddell v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 406 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 21, 1912

pursuant thereto, and the decision of the board sustaining the same. … See United States v. Tamm & Co. ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 425 ; T. D. 32173). The decision of the board sustaining the action of the collector is therefore approved and affirmed.

Brooks Paper Co. v. United States

40 C.C.P.A. 38 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1952

National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U. S. 292 . … We believe these distinctions are implicitly recognized in the case of National Labor Relations Board v.