Case law

Gould v. Hellwarth

472 F.2d 1383 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 15, 1973

If it had been considered, it would have provided substantial further support for affirming the board. . … Certain background facts as to Gould’s activities are revealed in the court’s opinion in Gould v. Schawlow and Townes, 53 CCPA 1403, 363 F.2d 908 , 150 USPQ 695 (1966).

King v. Young

100 F.2d 663 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 27, 1938

While we agree with the board that reduction to practice is established by appellee as of December, 1932, he may not be awarded a date earlier than the date alleged in his preliminary statement. Mitchell v. … Sweetland v. Cole, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 751, 53 F. (2d) 709.

Veterans Administration Hospital v. U.S. Department of Commerce, Domestic & International Business Administration

577 F.2d 1131 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 13, 1978

Both parties have agreed that the decision and judgment of this court dated December 1, 1977, in the consolidated appeals of Yale University v. … Department of Commerce, Domestic and International Business Administration, Office of Import Programs, No. 76-18, and Brown University v.

In re Wertheim

541 F.2d 257 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 26, 1976

Category V added De George to the § 103 rejection of claims 9, 10, 30, and 32-35. … The board otherwise relied on the reasoning in Categories V and VI.

Lang Co. v. United States

15 Ct. Cust. 341 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 5, 1927

Altman & Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 315 , T. D. 41232, and the decisions of the Board of United States General Appraisers (now United States Customs Court), found in Abstract 47559, 46 Treas. … United States v. Kalter Mercantile Co. et al., 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 540 , T. D. 39680; Sheldon & Co. v. United States, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 108 , T.

Wakefield v. Watkins

491 F.2d 1268 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 7, 1974

This is a sequel to our decision in Watkins v. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed.

The Seven-Up Company v. Tropicana Products, Inc

356 F.2d 567 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 3, 1966

However, the board found that “SUN-UP” was not confusingly similar to “SEVEN-UP” or its equivalent “7-UP” and we agree. … The appellant contends that the board was unduly influenced by the dissimilarity of meaning between the marks.

Matter of the Application of Carl B. Nash

230 F.2d 428 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1956

Co. v. Union Electric Mfg. Co., C. C., 147 F. 266 ; Western Telephone Mfg. Co. v. American Electric Tel. Co., 7 Cir., 131 F. 75 ; Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed. Reversed. JACKSON, Judge, retired, recalled to participate.

Draeger Shipping Co. v. United States

15 Ct. Cust. 454 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 13, 1928

In Wanamaker v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. … We affirmed the judgment of the board.

In re Corbett

142 F.2d 78 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1944

Patent Clothing Company, Limited v. Glover, 141 U. S. 560 ; Howe Machine Company v. National Needle Company, 134 U. S. 388 . … The decision of the Board of Appeals is ajfirméd.

United States v. Durbrow & Hearne Manufacturing Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 410 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 18, 1914

D. 28276, Lehigh Manufacturing Co. v. United States ( 153 Fed., 596 ), Bromley v. United States ( 156 Fed., 958 ), Prosser v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 29, 30 ; T. D. 30856). … The decision of the board seems to have been based on the decision of this court in the case of United States v. Leigh & Butler ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 304 ; T. D. 33517).

In re Maucorps

609 F.2d 481 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 1, 1979

Citing Gottschalk v. … App.1978) — nor the Supreme Court’s decisions in Parker v.

United States v. Emrich

13 Ct. Cust. 199 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 3, 1925

In the case of Littauer v. United States, 2 Ct. Cust. … A. 8770, in the case of Keer, Maurer Co. v.

In Re Butler

37 F.2d 623 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1930

The Board of Appeals affirmed the action of the examiner, from which decision of the Board of Appeals, appellant has appealed to this court. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Calhoun, Robbins & Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 360 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 30, 1918

The same ruling was made as to the present tariff law by the board in T. D. 34887, which the present case followed. It is contended that this court, in the case of United States v. Veit ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 290 ; T. … The decision of the board is affirmed.

Application of Habet M. Khelghatian

364 F.2d 870 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 4, 1966

We are familiar with the views of the Supreme Court there referred to as expressed in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 , 86 S.Ct. 684 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 , and United States v. … The board also relied upon both of these cases, and the examiner relied upon Ex parte Appeal No. 13,231 only.

In re Lyon

86 F.2d 824 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1936

It is argued on behalf of appellant, in substance, that rule 124, sufra, is a regulatory measure, citing Newcomb v. Lemp, 1904 C. … Lowry and Planters Compress Company v. Allen, Commissioner of Patents, 203 U. S. 476 ; 1906 C. D. 765.

United States v. Feeese Co.

4 Ct. Cust. 271 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1913

Strakosh v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 360 ; T. D. 31453); Acker v. United States (ib., 404; T. D. 31481); United States v. Motor Car Equipment Co. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 77 ; T. D. 32355). … It is suggested that as the affidavit was actually admitted by the board it is made competent evidence by subsection 29 of section 28 of the present tariff act. This question was considered at length in United States v.

United States v. Isler

13 Ct. Cust. 485 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1926

The right in the Government to the duties on the goods became absolute and irrevocable upon their abandonment. *489 Tbe case of Uberti v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. … In accordance with the stipulation the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers as to claims 539, 540, and 545, is affirmed, and, as to all other claims, the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Nicholas v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 97 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 12, 1916

On appeal to the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York the decision of the board was reversed. Hills v. United States ( 99 Fed., 425 ). … Downs v. United States ( 187 U. S., 496 ). The board held that the Russian laws were within the provisions of section 5 of the tariff act of 1897 (30 Stat. L., 151).