Case law

In re Ewald

117 F.2d 755 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 24, 1941

White v. Dunbar, 119 U. S. 47 ; Gen. Electric Co. v. Wabash Co., 304 U. S. 364 . See also In re Hegan, 25 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1182, 97 F. (2d) 86. … The decision of the board is modified, being reversed as to claim 15, and affi/rmed as to claims 14, 16, 17, 19, and 21.

Application of Armand A. Lachance and Stanley Ciborowski

390 F.2d 990 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1968

See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 , 86 S. Ct. 684 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966). … Thus, the decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 . The board consisted of Messrs. Dracopoulos and Brewrink, Examiners-in-Chief, and Reynolds, Acting Examiner-in-Chief. Mr.

Duffy-Mott Company, Inc. v. Cumberland Packing Company

424 F.2d 1095 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 30, 1970

The only precedent cited to us by applicant on this point is Stardust, Inc. v. Birdsboro Knitting Mills, Inc., 119 USPQ 270 (TTAB 1958). … We agree with the board that issuance of the requested registrations will not damage op-poser and the decision of the board is therefore affirmed. Affirmed. 1 . Nos. 45,019 and 45,030. 2 .

Oberle v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 404 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1917

The Board of General Appraisers, relying upon the case of United States v. Wyman & Co. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 264 ; T. D. 33485), held that it did not. … We think this holding of the board was in line with the decision of this court in United States v. Wyman, supra, and the decision will be affirmed.

In Re Caunt

81 F.2d 405 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 3, 1936

Smith v. Snow et al., 294 U.S. 1 , 55 S.Ct. 279 , 79 L.Ed. 721 ; Buckeye Incubator Co. et al. v. Wolf (D. C.) 291 F. 253 ; United Verde Copper Co. v. Pierce-Smith Converter Co. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Jiffy, Inc. v. Jordan Industries, Inc.

481 F.2d 1323 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 23, 1973

Clinton Detergent Co. v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 302 F.2d 745 , 49 CCPA 1146, 1150-1151, 748 (1962) ; Roux Laboratories Inc. v. Clairol Inc., 427 F.2d 823 , 57 CCPA 1173 (1970); Standard International Corp. v. … A. v. Comptoir De La Parfumerie, S. A. Ancienne Maison Tschanz, 441 F.2d 673 , 58 CCPA 1167, 169 USPQ 587 (1971). For the reasons stated above, the decision of the board is reversed. Reversed. MARKEY, C. J., dissents. .

Kurz & Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 527 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1926

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importers appealed. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Scott F. Hunt v. Irven E. Coffey, (Two Cases). Irven E. Coffey v. Scott F. Hunt, (Two Cases)

223 F.2d 943 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 1, 1955

Mock, 150 F.2d 563 , 32 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1183, and Jorgensen v. Shaff, 189 F.2d 264 , 38 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1061, should apply. However, we believe that these cases are inapposite. In Chandler v. … Relative to Jorgensen v.

Sherman v. Johnson

117 F.2d 266 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 3, 1941

In the instant case we are in disagreement with the board with reference to its conclusion that the count is unambiguous. … See Cleveland Gas Burner & Appliance Co. v. American Heater Corp., 38 F. (2d) 760, 763.

Watts v. Praeger

93 F.2d 904 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 24, 1938

When these three cases reached the board all *808 parties except Watts and Praeger bad been eliminated. … In our decision in the case of Coast, Jr., v. Dubbs, 24 C. C. P. A.

Beuttell & Sons v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 409 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1918

In insisting upon this distinction the Government relies chiefly upon the case of Beuttell v. Magone ( 157 U. … The result is that the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Benson v. Beman

109 F.2d 223 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 5, 1940

However, Beman argues that even if we should reverse the decision of the board as to the first ground, the record does not sustain Benson’s contention as to originality. . *829 The board did not refer to the question of originality … The cases of Nelson et al. v. Campbell, 25 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 149, 92 F. (2d) 974, and Steenstrup v. Heath, 25 C. C. P. A.

In re Robertshaw

75 F.2d 203 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 4, 1935

Co. et al. v. Phillips, 9 F. (2d) 902 (C. C. A. 2); Wagner et al. v. Meccano, Limited, 235 Fed. 890 (C. C. A. 6); Harper Bros. et al. v. Klaw et al., 272 Fed. 894 (C. C. A. 2); Nutter et al. v. … In the Roemer v.

In Re Richter

53 F.2d 525 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1931

C. 228; Smith v. Nichols, 21 Wall. 132 ,119, 22 L. Ed. 566 .” … Steel Wheel Corporation v. B. E. Goodrich Rubber Co. (D. C.) 27 F.(2d) 427 .

In Re Washburn

182 F.2d 202 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 9, 1950

After the board’s decision was rendered, the appellant filed a petition requesting reconsideration. … As said by the circuit court of appeals in American Lava Co. v.

Application of Hubert T. Henderson

348 F.2d 550 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 15, 1965

To the foregoing pronouncements of this court, we would add the pertinent statement of the court in Schering Corp. v. … The decision of the board is accordingly reversed. Reversed. .

Application of Barney J. Magerlein and William P. Schneider

346 F.2d 609 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 14, 1965

For the reasons stated in Nathan we do not consider the board’s position to be sound. … In addition to the melting point (161-163°C) and infra-red analysis given for that compound supra, Bernstein apparently obtained the same compound, having a melting point of 217-219° C,v max. of 3422, 1742, 1710, 1662, 1625

Pioneer Hi-Bred Corn Company v. Joseph H. Welp

280 F.2d 151 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 13, 1960

The board found that the differences in sound and meaning of the marks are such that there would be no reasonable likelihood of confusion. … Shoe Corp. of America v. Juvenile Shoe Corp. of America, 266 F.2d 793 , 46 CCPA 868. There is no similarity between “Line” and “Croft.”

In re Johnson

589 F.2d 1070 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1978

v. … OPINION Initially, we recognize that the board considered these appeals without the benefit of the Supreme Court’s decision in Parker v. Flook, supra.

Application of O'Keefe

202 F.2d 767 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 11, 1953

In re Lee, 193 F.2d 186 , 39 C.C.P.A., Patents, 752, 756—757; International Standard Electric Corp. v. Kingsland, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 355 , 169 F.2d 890 . … Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45 , 43 S.Ct. 322 , 67 L.Ed. 523 .