Case law

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).

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. American Brands, Inc.

493 F.2d 1235 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1974

Neither party asserts any error in the board’s finding, or any effect such finding has upon the alleged first use of March 10, 1970. See Rockwood Chocolate Co., Inc. v. … Co., Inc. v.

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.

Harris v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 420 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1915

All of these have been fully examined in Vandegrift v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 198 ; T. D. 32470); Harris v. United States (3 ibid., 265; T. D. 32570); and United States v. Harris (4 ibid., 116; T. … Vandegrift v. United States, supra.

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.

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.

Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana v. United States

33 C.C.P.A. 152 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1946

Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana v. United States, 6 Cust. Ct. 237 , C. D. 471. … See United States v. B. Holman, Inc., 29 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 3, C. A. D. 164.

In re Hubbell

164 F.2d 700 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 29, 1947

In the case of Potts v. Creager, 155 U. … The law is well stated in Canda et al. v.

United States v. Rhodia Chemical Co.

11 Ct. Cust. 388 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 13, 1922

—Strakosh v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 360 ; T. D. 31453); Benjamin Iron & Steel Co. v. United States (2 Ct. Cust-Appls. 159; T. D. 31677); United States v. Danker & Marston ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 462 ; T. … D. 32208); Davies v. Arthur ( 96 U. S. 148, 150, 151 ); Herrman v. Robertson ( 152 U. S. 521, 524, 525, 526 ).

Schenley Distillers, Inc. v. General Cigar Co., Inc.

427 F.2d 783 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 25, 1970

Waldes v. International Mfrs. Agency Inc., 237 F. 502 (S.D.N.Y.1916); Sweet Sue Kitchens, Inc. v. C-B Drug Co., 159 USPQ 242 (T.T.A.B.1968); Geo. A. Dickel Co. v. Stephano Bros., supra; Phoenix Mfg. Co. v. Plymouth Mfg. … The decision of the board dismissing the opposition is affirmed. Affirmed.

Preston v. White

92 F.2d 813 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1937

We cited the cases of MacGregor v. Chesterfield and Heidbrink v. McKesson, supra, and followed the doctrine announced therein. … Again, in Bloodheart v. Levernier, 20 C. C. P. A.

In re Sandwall

62 F.2d 183 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1932

The application relates to a water tube steam boiler having inclined water tubes secured at the inner walls of the headers which headers are bent at an angle in the middle into a V shape with the point of the V directed downwards … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

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.

Application of Franz

190 F.2d 86 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1951

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 , 71 S.Ct. 127 . … United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, 40 , 71 S.Ct. 104 . *90 However, as a necessary consequence of its decision in Baldwin Co. v. R. S.

George v. Karsel

111 F.2d 148 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1940

Both motions were denied by the Examiner of Interferences and such decision was affirmed by the Board of Appeals. … See Derby et. al. v. Whit worth, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 791, 62 F. (2d) 368.

Walsko v. Smith

102 F.2d 815 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 27, 1939

Duryea v. Rice, 28 App. D. C. 423, 434; Robinson v. Heising, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 895, 55 F. (2d) 472; Chapman v. Wintroath, supra. [ 252 U. S. 126 ]. … Brooks v. Carleton Ellis, a manuscript decision of the Board of Examiners-in-Cliief (predecessor of the present Board of Appeals) in interference No. 40,012, dated January 15, 1917.

Larson v. Eicher

49 F.2d 1029 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1931

Morton v. Sydney M. Cadwell, 39 F.(2d) 704 , 17 C. C. P. A. 1024, and eases therein cited; St. John et al. v. Schulze, 47 F.(2d) 798 , 18 C. C. P. A.-. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

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 .

Application of Ulrich Finsterwalder

436 F.2d 1028 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 4, 1971

The board further found no patentable significance in any of the other features recited in the claims. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 . U. S. Patent 3,003,219, October 10, 1961.

Swingline, Inc. v. I. B. Kleinert Rubber Company

399 F.2d 283 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 18, 1968

The parties propose to overrule the Board by their stipulation and the proposed order they are requesting the Court to sign. … That there is no necessity for the majority action here is clearly evident from the action taken by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in Viber Co. v. Ren-ner Co., 156 USPQ 160 (1967).