Case law

In re Carreira

532 F.2d 1356 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1976

We pointed out in Mathews that the origin of 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) is the Supreme Court decision in Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co., 270 U.S. 390 , 46 S.Ct. 324 , 70 L.Ed. 651 (1926). Therein Mr. … The decision of the board is affirmed. AFFIRMED

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.

Servo Corporation of America v. Servo-Tek Products Co., Inc. (Electro-Devices, Inc., Assignee, Substituted)

289 F.2d 955 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 5, 1961

Inc. v. Mezger Pharmacal Co., Inc., 228 F.2d 243 , 43 CCPA 703; Lauritzen and Co., Inc. v. The Borden Co., 44 CCPA 720, 239 F.2d 405 . Obviously the only similarity in the instant marks is in the prefix “Servo”. … May Department Stores Co. v. Schloss Bros. & Co., Inc., 234 F.2d *957 879, 43 CCPA 980, and cases cited therein.

Lang v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 85 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1914

Bayersdorfer v. United States ( 171 Fed., 286 ); United States v. Bayersdorfer ( 175 Fed., 959 ). … Hahn v. United States ( 100 Fed., 635 ); Ross v. Peaslee ( 20 Fed. Cas., 1241 -1242); Vandiver v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls.,. 505-507; T. D. 32246).

United States v. Tappenbeck

7 Ct. Cust. 17 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1916

found in the board’s opinion. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed. ''

Hood River Distillers, Inc. v. Roger Louis Myers, D.B.A. Monopoles Alfred Rothschild

331 F.2d 606 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 14, 1964

See: Supreme Wine Co., Inc. v. American Distilling Company, 203 F.Supp. 736 (DCNY, 1962). … [All footnotes by board.] 2 . Reg. No. 662,688, issued June 3, 1958. 3 . Societe Anonyme Marne et Champagne v. Myers, 250 F.2d 374 , 45 CCPA 755 (1957).

International Sales Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 506 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 17, 1925

—United States v. Passavant ( 169 U. S. 16 ); Roger v. United States ( 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 201 ; T. D. 40181). … —United States v. Passavant ( 169 U. S. 16, 25 ).

In re Buttolph

73 F.2d 936 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 24, 1934

As pointed out in the decision of Steenstrup v. Morton 382 O. … We agree with the board and the examiner that the term “ for positive column light ” is a limitation in said claims not disclosed in appellant’s application as filed. In the case of Braren v. Horner, 18 C. C . P. A.

Benedict v. Menninger

64 F.2d 1001 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1933

Gowen v. Hendry, 37 F.(2d) 426 , 17 C. C. P. A. 789. As to the issue concerning abandonment, we discern no error in the decision of the Board of Appeals. … Numerous authorities are cited by the Board of Appeals as sustaining the rule that an application effects a reduction to practice of everything disclosed therein regardless of what is claimed. Field v.

United States v. Hirsch, Stein & Co.

8 Ct. Cust. 121 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 14, 1917

The court, by Montgomery, Presiding Judge, said: The opinion, of the board was in accord with the foregoing, but the collector’s action was reversed by the board on grounds not stated in the opinion, presumably on the *124 … The decision of the board is therefore reversed.

Cross Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 196 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 3, 1917

There are various exhibits, aptly and correctly described in the opinion of the 'Board of General Appraisers, except that each of Exhibits 3 and 4 contains one thimble not mentioned by the board. … It was said in the case of United States v.

In re Prutton

173 F.2d 234 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 1, 1949

V.. … The board affirmed the basis for rejection set forth in groups I through V, supra, applying to the claims there enumerated. ■ Appellant’s contentions before us may be briefly summarized as follows: First.

United States v. Mason Bros. & Co.

2 Ct. Cust. 236 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 12, 1911

This holding was based upon the decision of the court in Downing v. United States (141 Fed. Rep., 490; T. D. 26454). *237 An examination of the act of 1897, which was construed in Downing v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed, and the assessment is affirmed.

Dirkes v. Eitzen

96 F.2d 849 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1938

(Patents) 1134, 40 F (2d) 999; Thompson v. Pettis, 18 C. C. P. A. … Sweetland v. Cole, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 751, 53 F. (2d) 709.

In re Chatfield

545 F.2d 152 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 18, 1976

Opinion The board took the position that the claims are drawn to non-statutory subject matter under the Supreme Court’s decision in Gottschalk v. … Cohens v.

Application of the Belgrade Shoe Company

411 F.2d 1352 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 3, 1969

Wilson v. Delaunay, 245 F.2d 877 , 44 CCPA 1019 (1957). We feel that the two very similar marks, when applied to the same goods, would create a likelihood of confusion. … Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp., 376 F.2d 324 , 54 CCPA 1295 (1967). Third party registrations have very little weight on the issue. The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 .

In Re Wadman

94 F.2d 993 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 28, 1938

Claims 17 and 19 were allowed by the Board. Ten apparatus claims including 17 and 19, have been allowed. … See, also, Mantle Lamp Company v. Aluminum Products Co., 301 U.S. 544 , 57 S.Ct. 837 , 81 L.Ed. 1277 .

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).

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.

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.