Case law

Sussman v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 255 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 19, 1926

Bradford v. American Lithographic Co., 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 318, 323 ; United States v. Martorelli, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 327, 331 . … United States v. Martorelli, supra, at page 331; Hobe Button Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 341, 346 .

Charles J. Stalego and Wendell W. Drummond v. Pierre Rene Heymes and Ivan Peyches

263 F.2d 334 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 5, 1959

Jenks v. Knight, 90 F.2d 654 , 24 C.C.P.A. 1227 ; and Rieser v. Williams, 255 F.2d 419 , 45 C.C.P.A. 953 . … As was pointed out in the Rieser v.

Tac Technical Instrument Corporation v. Fischer & Porter Co.

433 F.2d 827 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 14, 1971

The board found that opposer is the prior user and this finding is not contested. … Hall Co. v.

Walter H. Rodin v. Thomas R. Spalding

297 F.2d 256 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1962

In Field v. … Lavin v. Pierotti, supra [ 129 F.2d 883 , 29 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1235]; Steenstrup v. Heath, 95 F.2d 514, 517 ; 25 C.C.P.A., Patents, 981, 986; Van Auken v. Cummings, supra.”

In re Stuckey

50 F.2d 273 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1931

The *1411 examiner rejected all the claims, which decision was affirmed by the Board of Appeals. … (Patents) 712, 44 F. (2d) 868; Century Electric Co. v. Wagner, etc., 192 Fed. 564 ; In re Achenbach, 18 C. C. P. A.. (Patents) 769, 45 F. (2d) 437.

Pleissner v. United States

16 Ct. Cust. 507 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 16, 1929

We had this statute under consideration in United States v. Richard & Co., 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 143 , T. D. 42216. … In support of this contention United States v. Proctor, 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 373 , T. D. 42564, and United States v. Powers, 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 185 , T. D. 42811, are cited. These cases do not seem to be in point.

Bush & Co. v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 401 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 3, 1915

State v. Winters (Kans. Sup., 25 Pac., 237 ). … State v.

United States v. European Watch & Clock Co.

11 Ct. Cust. 363 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 6, 1922

D. 33166); United States v. Flory & Co. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 87 ; T. D. 33367); Altman & Co. v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 296 ; T. D. 34475); United States v. International Forwarding Co. ( 6 Ct. Cust. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In re Kylstra

81 F.2d 487 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1937

(Patents) 1293, 84 F. (2d) 221, and the oft-cited case of Potts v. Creager, 155 U. S. 597 . … The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Potts v.

Prestige Group Limited v. Home Decorators, Inc.

292 F.2d 298 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 12, 1961

Under these circumstances, it is concluded that confusion or mistake or deception of purchasers is quite likely to occur, with resulting damage to op-poser.” , We stated in Home Decorators, Inc. v. … For these reasons, we affirm the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in Appeal No. 6679. However, we reverse the decision of the board in Appeal No. 6678. Modified. 1 . British Reg.

Mount Washington Tanker Co. v. United States

665 F.2d 340 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 25, 1981

Co. v. United States, 60 Treas. … Burnet v.

Thompson-Starrett Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 37 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 19, 1924

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest, and this appeal was taken from its decision. … States v.

Application of Don L. Rubinfield

270 F.2d 391 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 6, 1959

Co. v. White, 14 Wall. 511 , 81 U.S. 511 , 20 L.Ed. 731 ; Borgfeldt & Co. v. … Company v.

United States v. Smith & Co.

12 Ct. Cust. 384 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1924

—Movius v. Arthur ( 95 U. S. 144, 147 ); United States v. Riggs ( 203 U. S. 136 ); United States v. Wells, Fargo & Co. ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 158, 164, 165 ; T. D. 31211). … We concur in the conclusion reached by the Board of General Appraisers, and accordingly the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. European Watch & Clock Co.

13 Ct. Cust. 522 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1926

From the board’s judgment the importer and the Government appealed. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore reversed.

United States v. Borgfeldt

3 Ct. Cust. 408 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 21, 1912

See United States v. Didier ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 436 ; T. D. 32198); United States v. Downing ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 337 ; T. D. 31434); Gage v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 427 ; T. D. 32174). … The decision of the board is reversed.

Bramley v. Beese

132 F.2d 100 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 26, 1942

In this case, we are in much the same position as we were in Brand v. Thomas, 25 C. C. P. A. … The decision of the Board of Interference Examiners is affirmed.

Application of Dobeckmun Company (The Dow Chemical Company, Assignee, Substituted)

286 F.2d 187 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1961

Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Hofman, 258 F.2d 953 , 46 CCPA 708; Meyer Chemical Co. v. Anahist Co., Inc. (Warner-Lambert Pharmaceutical Co., Assignee, substituted). 263 F.2d 344 , 46 CCPA 784. … For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Affirmed.

Application of Gibbons

210 F.2d 299 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 3, 1954

Co. v. … Railroad Supply Co. v. Hart Steel Co., 7 Cir., 222 F. 261, 273 ; Lorenz v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co., D.C., 60 F.Supp. 824 .

General Cable Corporation v. Republic Wire and Cable Corporation

327 F.2d 1019 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 20, 1964

Motorola, Inc. v. Griffiths Electronics, Inc., 317 F.2d 397 , 50 CCPA 1518, cited by appellant, is factually distinguishable from the case at bar. … Of particular significance is the registration of “SUPER CORONOL.” 11 We agree with the board that Libby-Owens-Ford Glass Co. v.