Case law

Woolworth Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 217 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 13, 1922

What constitutes a “toy” within import tariff nomenclature was defined by this court in Illfelder v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 109, 111 ; T. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Siegman v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 195 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1916

As to all' the other items represented by the several exhibits the board overruled the protest, and from that part of the board’s decision the importers appealed. … Horstman v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 458 ; T. D. 35986).

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.

Application of John D. Sutherland, Jr

347 F.2d 1009 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 22, 1965

For an interesting old case holding both patents valid in a somewhat similar situation, see McMillan v. Rees, 1 F. 722 (C.C.W.D.Pa., 1880). The examiner seems to have been led astray by these considerations. … The decision of the board is reversed. Reversed. . Stringham, “Double Patenting,” (1933), Chap. II. .

Kraemer & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 470 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1914

The board predicated its decision upon Cohn v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 378 ; T. D. 33536). … See American Bead Co. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 509 ; T. D. 33166). In the case of United States v.

Application of Ralph A. Ruscetta and Alfred L. Jenny

255 F.2d 687 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1958

In view of the nature of the argument which has been erected on certain passages in the Stempel opinion, we deem it advisable to reiterate the warnings given in the past by Judge Hatfield in Conover v. … It was applied by the Supreme Court under slightly different circumstances in Muncie Gear Works, Inc. v. Outboard Marine & Mfg. Co., 315 U.S. 759 , 62 S.Ct. 865 , 86 L.Ed. 1171 .

Proctor Co. v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 119 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 3, 1915

See Hall v. United States (T. D. 25340). … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

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.

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.

Application of Donald Richman

409 F.2d 269 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1969

In support of his position, the solicitor points out that this court, in In re Wesseler (supra, footnote 3), stated that Shepard v. … The examiner, and the board in affirming, relied on a comparison of ’537 patent claim 3 and appealed claim 25.

In re Miller

159 F.2d 756 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1947

The patent to V an Winkle discloses a machine for opening and cleaning cotton and other fibrous material which comprises two or more rotary shafts provided with beaters which deliver the fibrous material onto a rotating screen … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is accordingly affirmed.

Rava v. Charlton

104 F.2d 798 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1939

Croskey v. Atterbury, 9 App. D. C. 207; Derby et al. v. Whitworth, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 791, 62 F. (2d) 368; Hoza v. Colby, 25 C. C. P. A. … Foster v. Antisdel, 14 App. D. C. 552.

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.

Application of Henze

181 F.2d 196 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 3, 1950

When the appellant appeal *198 ed to the Patent Office Board of Appeals the decision of the examiner was, on December 12, 1947, affirmed. … General Electric Co. v. Jewel Incandescent Lamp Co., 326 U.S. 242, 249 , 66 S.Ct. 81, 84 , 90 L.Ed. 43 .

Charles B. Swain and Albert G. Schuessler v. Harvey E. Mallory

329 F.2d 982 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 2, 1964

Moreover, in Loukomsky v. … Stern [et al.] v. Schroeder [et al.], 36 F.2d 518 , 17 CCPA 690; Hartog v. Long [et al.], 47 F.2d 365 , 18 CCPA 993; Field v.

United States v. Grasselli Chemical Co.

3 Ct. Cust. 486 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 20, 1913

The board in sustaining the contention of the importer relied upon the case of Manufacturers’ Paper Co. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 72 ; T. D. 32353). That case presented a different question. … It follows that the decision of the Board of General Appraisers should be reversed and the classification of the collector sustained. It is so ordered.

Woolworth v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 120 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1910

Lai Ming v. United States (Court of Customs Appeals Report, supra, p. 5; T. D. 30770); United States v. Dickson ( 15 Pet., 141 ); and Wayman v. Southard ( 10 Wheat., 1 ). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers will be affirmed.

Application of Ruben O. Peterson (Deceased) (The Osborn Manufacturing Company, Assignee, Substituted)

274 F.2d 672 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 19, 1960

Each row contains a suitable number of “V-shaped” strips, the bottom thereof being used for retention of the strip on the drum. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed. Reversed.

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.

In re Shareholders Data Corp.

495 F.2d 1360 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 16, 1974

See Hearings on H.R. 9041 before House Subcomm. on Trade-Marks of House Comm. on Patents, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 126 (1938); Elgin National Watch Co. v. … Illinois Watch Case Co., 179 U.S. 665, 673 , 21 S.Ct. 270 , 45 L.Ed. 365 (1901), and American Steel Foundries v. Robertson, Commissioner, 269 U.S. 372, 380 , 46 S.Ct. 160 , 70 L.Ed. 317 (1926).