Case law

Fontijn v. Okamoto

518 F.2d 610 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 19, 1975

Kuppenbender v. … Cited as the sole support for the board’s construction of the statute is State of Israel v. Brenner, Comr. Pats., 273 F.Supp. 714 (D.D.C.1967), aff’d 130 U.S.App.D.C. 318 , 400 F.2d 789 (1968).

United States v. Brown & Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 45 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 28, 1919

United States v. Hohner et al. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 122 ; T. … It is very evident, therefore, that United States v.

United States v. Brown & Co.

10 Ct. Cust. 89 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 24, 1920

In Wright & Graham Co. v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 453 ; T. … The Government strenuously urges that the question now before us is res judicata because in the case of United States v. Brown & Co. ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls., 45 ; T.

United States v. Brown & Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 212 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 7, 1914

In support of its contention the Government relies chiefly upon the decisions of this court in the case of United States v. White ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 80 ; T. D. 31632), and the case of Dejonge v. United States ( 3 Ct. … See Stiner v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 347 ; T.

Brown & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 396 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 18, 1914

The board found that all of the slippers were composed in chief value of straw, and accordingly sustained the protests claiming that the goods were manufactures in chief value of straw and overruled those in which it was … We think the protests involved in this appeal were wholly insufficient and that therefore they were properly overruled by the board. The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. Brown

12 Ct. Cust. 497 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 17, 1925

—Arnold v. United States (13 U. S. (9 Cr.) 103); Gardner v. The Collector ( 73 U. S. 499 ); Lapeyre v. United States ( 84 U. S. 191 ); Burgess v. Salmon ( 97 U. S. 381 ). … —Louisville v. Savings Bank ( 104 U. S. 469 ); United States v. Stoddard et al. ( 89 Fed. 699 ). The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Brown & Bigelow v. Eugene Dietzgen Co.

203 F.2d 764 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1953

Hill Brown Corp. v. United States

54 C.C.P.A. 99 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 11, 1967

While section 402 (e) is to be interpreted liberally, United States v. … Kenneth Kittleson v. United States, 40 CCPA 85, C.A.D. 502.

Brown-Brockmeyer Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

197 F.2d 871 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1952

Considering the marks as a whole the examiner was of opinion that there is likelihood of confusion and mistake if the respective marks of the parties are used concurrently on like products, citing Auburn Rubber Corp. v. … Co. v. The Sitroux Co., Inc., 109 F.2d 445 , 27 C.C.P.A., Patents, 858.

Brown Boveri Corp. v. United States

53 C.C.P.A. 19 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 17, 1966

Boveri Corp., Gehrig Hoban & Co., Inc. v. … It would include conductors, instruments of all Rinds, paneling boards made from steel or marble, a lot of equipment mounted thereon and behind and interconnected.

United States v. American Brown Boveri Electric Corp.

17 C.C.P.A. 329 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1929

Van Pelt & Brown, Inc. v. John Wyeth & Brother, Inc.

161 F.2d 244 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1947

and in use” as provided for in section 5 of the Trade-Mark Act of 1905, the examiner held that the validity of appellee’s registered trade-mark could not be challenged in an opposition proceeding, citing Englander, Etc. v. … basis for confusion between the labels of the parties; that appellee had not made such exclusive use of blue bands and ink as to render that color of secondary significance; and that appellant’s product is contained in brown

In re Reynolds Metals Co.

480 F.2d 902 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1973

The board’s opinion and the Commissioner’s brief cite these, and only these statements in appellant’s advertisements : “New Reynolds Brown-in-Bag bastes meat brown ’n juicy * * “Meat brown savory and tender.” … Competitors remain perfectly free to inform purchasers that foods may be browned in their bags and to use “brown,” “in” and “bag” in whatever nontrademark manner they choose. Pacific Industries Inc. v.

In re Attwood

253 F.2d 234 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 14, 1958

Claim 8 was rejected by the board as unpatentable over Brown in view of Chase. … The board rejected this claim as unpatentable over Brown in view of Chase, the German patent and Attwood. Again, we feel that the Attwood disclosure was not properly combined with the other cited references.

In re Swenson

132 F.2d 1020 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1942

One claim rejected by the examiner was allowed by the board. … The board refused to affirm this rejection.

Application of Bloomer

178 F.2d 407 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 12, 1949

The two references relied on by the board in affirming the Primary Examiner’s rejection are the following patents: Grote et al., 2,113,960, Apr. 12, 1938; Brown, 2,340,104, Jan. 25, 1944. … entirely proper to consider the material which is being acted upon and the solvent itself as limitations, and we do not think it inconsistent with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sinclair & Carroll Co., Inc., v.

United States v. La Manna

14 Ct. Cust. 123 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 8, 1926

It felt bound by the decision of this court in Brown v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 415 , and by a recent board decision, Conkey v. United States, C. A. 8845, T. D. 40376, now on appeal to this court. … In the Conkey case the board followed the ruling in the Brown case.

Richard J. Clauss and Henry Brown v. Donald Gardner Foulke, Otto Kardos and Herman Koretzky

379 F.2d 586 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 22, 1967

As in the Young et al. v. … As the winning party below, Foulke is not required to cross appeal with respect to issues raised by them before the board and decided adversely to them. See Klemperer v. Price, 271 F.2d 743 , 47 CCPA 729. 11 .

Masson v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 420 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 27, 1912

This motion was not sustained by the board. … the finding of the board.

In re Swenson

132 F.2d 336 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1942

See LeBrou v. Nix, 38 App. D. … The board, in affirming the said rejection by the examiner, stated as follows: * * * Taking the Brown patent, for example, it discloses imparting a glaze of any color desired to granules by interfusing fluxing or glazing