Case law

United States v. Conkey

3 Ct. Cust. 245 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 17, 1912

It is urged that as this clause of paragraph 97 was construed in United States v. Hensel (106 Fed. … See Reiche v. Smythe ( 80 U. S., 162 ). But we think this is a case in which such controlling intent is clearly shown.

Kraemer & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 66 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 14, 1914

Robertson v. Gerdan ( 132 U. S., 454 ); United States v. Schoverling ( 146 U. S., 76 ); Vandegrift case (T. D. 30272 and cases therein cited). … The decision of the board is therefore affirmed.

Houlder v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 247 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1913

Nichols v. United States ( 7 Wall., 74 U. S., 122, 126); Schillinger v. United States ( 155 U. S., 163, 166 ); Ferry & Co. v. United States ( 85 Fed., 550, 553 ); Cheatham et al. v. United States ( 92 U. … S., 85, 88, 89 ); Auffmordt v. Hedden ( 137 U. S., 310, 324 ); Anglo-Californian Bank v. Secretary of the Treasury ( 166 U. S., 722 ); Anglo-Californian Bank v. United States ( 175 U. S., 37, 39 ).

In re Silenus Wines, Inc.

557 F.2d 806 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 23, 1977

This is an appeal from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board) affirming the refusal of the examiner to register the trademark STEFMON for table wine. 1 Appellant controverts … World Carpets, Inc. v. Dick Littrell’s New World Carpets, 438 F.2d 482, 488-89 , 168 USPQ 609, 614-15 (CA 5 1971); Franchised Stores, Inc., v.

Jennings v. Hill

184 F.2d 187 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 29, 1950

Tinnerman v. Kost, 129 F.2d 725 , 29 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1259; Stenger et al. v. Holmes, 103 F.2d 410 , 26 C.C.P.A., Patents,, 1224; Whitehead v. Diamond, 97 F.2d 604 , 25 C.C.P.A. Patents, 1357. … Janette v. Folds et al., 38 F.2d 361, 363 , 17 C.C.P.A., Patents, 879.

United States v. Hamburger Levine Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 217 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 7, 1914

This issue was submitted upon evidence to the Board of General Appraisers and the protest was sustained, the board holding that the articles in question were cotton wearing apparel, but were not appliquéd. … In the case of Krusi v. United States (1 Ct.

Application of Games Slayter

276 F.2d 408 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 30, 1960

Peters v. Active Manufacturing Co., 129 U.S. 530, 537 , 9 S.Ct. 389 , 32 L.Ed. 738 ; Knapp v. Moras, 150 U.S. 221 , 14 S.Ct. 81 , 37 L.Ed. 1059 ; Faries Mfg. Co. v. S. W. Farber Mfg. … We agree with the board that the claims define nothing patentable over the Smith patent. The decision is affirmed. Affirmed.

International Order of Job's Daughters v. Lindeburg & Co.

687 F.2d 436 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 26, 1982

OPINION Our jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1542 and 15 U.S.C. § 1071 is limited to a review of “the decision” of the board. In Toro Co. v. … Toro Co. v. Hardigg Enterprises, Inc., supra; Knickerbocker Toy Co. v. Faultless Starch Co., 59 CCPA 1300, 467 F.2d 501 , 175 USPQ 417 (1972).

Overton & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 183 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1914

Salomon Bros. & Co. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 431 ; T. D. 32196); Patton v. United States ( 159 U. S., 500, 501-505 ); Latimer v. United States ( 223 U. S., 501 -504). … United States v. Burne ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 298 ; T. D. 33515); Swan v. Arthur ( 103 U. S., 597 -598; Arthur’s Executors v. Butterfield ( 125 U. S., 70, 74-75 ).

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.

Application of Oskar Sus and Werner Schaefer

306 F.2d 494 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 25, 1962

Merrill v. … Unite1d Carbon Company and United Carbon Company, Inc. v. Binney & Smith Company, 317 U.S. 228 , 63 S.Ct. 165 , 87 L.Ed. 232 .

In re Modine

57 F.2d 355 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1932

The Board of Appeals differed with the examiner as to the Harrison reference, but rejected the claim upon the other references cited. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Louisville Bedding Co. v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 328 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 13, 1927

Kenyon Co. v. United States, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 344 . In Vantine & Co. v. United States, 3 Ct. Cust. … In United States v. Imperial Wall Paper Co., 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 280 , T.

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.”

Johnson Co. v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 472 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1916

As the importers have failed to furnish any testimony upon which any separation of the goods for tariff purposes may be potentially made, we think the case falls within the reasoning of United States v. Ranlett ( 172 U. … The decision of the board to that effect 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.

In re Guastavino

83 F.2d 913 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1936

There was no appeal to the Board of Appeals from the examiner’s rejection of those two claims, and, as of course, they are not included in the appeal to us. … Appellant places great reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, rendered in December, 1868, in the case of Morey v. Lockwood, 75 U. S. 230 .

Schenley Distillers, Inc. v. Fibah Corp.

466 F.2d 1406 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 5, 1970

At this point, we wish to note that the mark “OLE” was before us recently in Schenley Distillers, Inc. v. General Cigar Co., 57. CCPA *719 1213, 427 F. 2d 783 , 166 USPQ 142 (1970). … The board’s decision is affirmed. The board’s opinion is abstracted at 156 USPQ 714 (1967). Application Serial No. 202,930, filed Dec. 16, 1964, published on Dec. 7, 1965. No. 679,747, issued June 2,1959.

Application of Wayne H. Reynolds

443 F.2d 384 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1971

We find the examiner’s position on obviousness to be sound, and the board’s decision on claims 9-14 is accordingly affirmed. … As was stated by the court in Technicon Instruments Corp. v. Cole Instruments, Inc., 255 F.

Application of Robert W. Bodley

426 F.2d 390 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1970

The invention is readily understood by reading sole independent claim 18 in conjunction with Figs. 1 and 2 of the drawings, reproduced below: L/s V£ ' | l! … The decision of the board is, therefore, affirmed. Affirmed. 1 . Serial No. 334.752 filed December 31,1963.