Case law

In re Hanna

136 F.2d 749 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1943

The board did not cite any authority in its decision, but presumably, agreed with the examiner as to the applicability of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chapman v. Wintroath, 252 U. S. 126 . … In its decision the Court of Appeals (after citing Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354 ) interpreted the decision of the Supreme Court in the Chapman v.

Hendrickson & Nelson v. Ronning & Ronning

76 F.2d 137 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1935

Upon appeal, the Board of Appeals affirmed this decision. … Hayes v. Davison, 50 App. D. C. 361, 273 F. 325 ; Earles et al. v. Gomber, 50 App. D. C. 389, 273 F. 353 ; Leonard v. Everett, 52 App. D. C. 90, 281 F. 594 ; Chapman v. Beede, 54 App. D.

Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Dunhill Tailored Clothes, Inc.

293 F.2d 685 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 16, 1961

Salem Commodities, Inc. v. Miami Margarine Co., 244 F.2d 729 , 44 CCPA 932; DeWalt, Inc. v. Magna Power Tool Corp., 289 F.2d 656 , 48 CCPA 909. … Co. v. Staley Milling Co., 99 USPQ 175 (Com’r.), Townley *687 Clothes, Inc. v. Goldring, Inc., 100 USPQ 57 (Com’r.), Squirrel Brand Co., v.

In Re Thuau

135 F.2d 344 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 5, 1943

Regar & Sons, Inc., v. … Notwithstanding the foregoing the board affirmed the decision of the examiner.

United States v. Kress

13 Ct. Cust. 66 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1925

United States v. Sussfeld, Lorsch, & Co., 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 382, 384 , T. D. 34875; Shoverling v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 172 , T. D. 36491; United States v. Wittnauer, 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 370, 372 , T. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers must b.e affirmed.

In re Davies

475 F.2d 667 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 5, 1973

The board objected to much of this evidence on technical grounds. … See Martin v. Johnson, 59 CCPA 769, 454 F.2d 746 , 172 USPQ 391 (1972).

United States v. Downing & Co.

14 Ct. Cust. 43 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1926

Under the rule laid down in Cruger’s (Inc.) v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 516 , we think the board properly sustained the protest. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Chittick v. Lyons

104 F.2d 818 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1939

with the board upon that point. … We regard the case as being distinguishable from the well-known case of Corona Cord Tire Company v.

United States v. Moos & Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 322 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1914

On these findings of fact the board sustained the protests and the Government appealed. … United States v. Palma ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 140 ; T. D. 33412); United States v. Sprague, Warner et al. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 358 ; T. D. 33532).

Robert Harvey Rines v. Harry C. Morgan

250 F.2d 365 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 13, 1957

Fearon v. Krasnow, 36 C.C.P.A., Patents, 785, 172 F.2d 233 , was cited in support of that holding. … As was pointed out in Powell v.

Application of Douglas J. Bridgeford

357 F.2d 679 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 9, 1966

In Robeson this court pointed out it was not apparent that Congress, in enacting the terminal *682 disclaimer provision of 85 U.S.C. 253, had abandoned the principles found in Miller v. Eagle Mfg. … Co., 151 U.S. 186 , 14 S.Ct. 310 , 38 L.Ed. 121 (1894) and Underwood v. Gerber, 149 U.S. 224 , 13 S.Ct. 854 , 37 L.Ed. 710 (1893).

United States v. Altman & Co.

8 Ct. Cust. 148 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1917

D. 29634) and Woodruff & Co. v. United States (168 Id., 452; T. … See Kenyon Co. v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 344 ; T. D. 33529).

Application of the Pollak Steel Company

314 F.2d 566 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 13, 1963

The board did reconsider and reaffirmed its original decision on December 8,1961. … On the matter of making advertising expenditures under a wrong theory of the legal situation, see our recent opinion in Weiss Noodle Company v. Golden Cracknel and Speciality Company, 290 F.2d 845 , 48 CCPA 1004.

Arnold, Schwinn & Co., Opposer-Appellant v. Evans Products Company, Applicant-Appellee

302 F.2d 765 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1962

In Skram Co. v. … v.

Plumat v. Dunipace

464 F.2d 1402 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 14, 1972

We find no error in the board’s conclusion. As the board pointed out, the material is described in the Dunipace application as being “inert and non-injurious to the glass.” … Parker v. Frilette, 462 F. 2d 544 , 174 USPQ 321, 323 (1972).

Blanchard Importing & Distributing Co., Inc. v. Societe E. Blanchard Et Fils

402 F.2d 797 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 14, 1968

Columbia Mill Co. v. Alcorn, 150 U.S. 460 [ 14 S.Ct. 151 , 37 L.Ed. 1144 ] (1893); American Foods, Inc. v. … California Piece [Dye] Works v. California Hand Prints, supra; Bellbrook Dairies v. Hawthorn-Mellody Farms Dairy, 253 F.2d 431 (C.C.P.A.1958); Krank v. Philippe, 295 F. 1001 (D.C.Cir. 1924); Lever Bros. Co. v.

Josef Fried, David Perlman, Richard W. Thoma, and Elwood O. Titus v. Herbert C. Murray, and Durey H. Peterson

268 F.2d 223 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1959

This court in Den Beste v. … Trumbull v. Kirschbraun, 67 F.2d 974 , 21 C.C.P.A., Patents, 758; Blodgett and Hanson v. Richter, 79 F.2d 922 , 23 C.C.P.A., Patents, 749; Walsh v. Davidson, 101 F.2d 224 , 26 C.C.P.A., Patents, 812; Kyrides v.

Application of Edward C. Shokal, Paul A. Devlin and Deloss E. Winkler

242 F.2d 771 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 29, 1957

In that connection appellants cite the case of Meigs v. … Arness v. Franks, 138 F.2d 213 , 31 C.C.P.A., Patents, 737; In re Rodman, 223 F.2d 281 , 42 C.C.P.A., Patents, 951; Prutton v. Fuller, 230 F.2d 459 , 43 C.C.P.A., Patents, 831, and cases there cited.

American Trading Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 237 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 16, 1911

United States v. Davies, Turner & Co. (177 Fed. Rep., 371); Benneche & Bro. v. United States (153 Fed. Rep., 861); United States v. Seyd (158 Fed. Rep., 408). … The result is that the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Heyliger v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 90 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1921

The importers submitted testimony to the board tending to sustain these allegations, and they now ask a reversal of the board’s-decision. … In accordance with the foregoing views the decision of the board is affirmed.