Case law

Colonial Import & Export Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 137 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 5, 1914

In Robertson v. Frank Bros. Co. ( 132 U. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

International Latex Corp. v. I. B. Kleinert Rubber Co.

104 F.2d 382 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1939

In support of their contentions, counsel for appellant rely upon our decision in the case of Jantzen Knitting Mills v. West Coast Knitting Mills, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 843, 46 F. (2d) 182. … We may add that the diving board adds further distinctiveness to appellee’s mark. [Italics not quoted.]

In re Patton

234 F.2d 499 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1956

Railroad v. Locomotive Truck Co., 110 U. S. 490, 494 (1883); Ansonia Co. v. Electrical Supply Co., 144 U. S. 11, 18 (1891); In re LaVerne et al., 43 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 767, 229 F. (2d) 470, 108 USPQ 335 . … Potts v. Creager, 155 U. S. 597, 606 (1894). In re LaVerne et al., supra.

Lai Ming v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 5 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 22, 1910

The Board of Appraisers sustained the collector, and it is the determination of the board that is under review. The shoes involved are such as Chinese people often wear. … In Carter, Webster & Co. v. United States (143 Fed.

Togasaki v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 463 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 4, 1925

On appeal to the Board of General Appraisers, that'board sustained the classification of the collector, and rendered judgment accordingly, from which judgment importer appeals. In Ishimitsu v. United States (11 Ct. … Therefore, the • importation was properly classified and the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In re Bennett

40 F.2d 755 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1930

Co. v. Elyria I. & S. Co., 244 U. S. 285 ; In re I wan, 17 App. D. C. 566; In re Pein, 41 App. D. C. 586; Babcock Wilcox Co. v. Toledo, etc., 170 Fed. 81 ; Hinrichs v. Henderson, 32 F. (2d) 655; In re Travis, 17 C. C. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Denike v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 364 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1914

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importer appealed. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

United States v. Fenton Co.

13 Ct. Cust. 538 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1926

In Strohmeyer v. United States, 5 Ct. Cust. … In that conclusion .we agreed with the Board of General Appraisers in that case. The same distinction is found in paragraph 1656 as well as in 717 of the present act.

In re Beplate

77 F.2d 506 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1935

Braren v. George Horner, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 971, 47 F. (2d) 358, and cases there cited. In re Alfred, W. Abrahamsen, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1056, 56 F. (2d) 871. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Fischer

62 F.2d 988 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1933

The Board of Appeals, citing In re Isherwood, 46 App. D. C. 501, and In re Swan, 18 C. C. P. A. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. Bernard

15 Ct. Cust. 172 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1927

In United States v. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

United States Department of Energy v. Daugherty

687 F.2d 438 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 27, 1982

The board, concluding that Weil v. Fritz, 572 F.2d 856 , 196 USPQ 600 (Cust. & Pat.App.1978), did not overrule Thompson v. … Thus, I disapprove of the view expressed by the board in Magdo v.

In re Kuhrts

95 F.2d 325 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1938

On this point, we think the reasoning in the case of Hillard v. Remington Typewriter Co., 186 Fed. 334 , particularly applicable. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Raymond v. Wickersham

129 F.2d 522 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1942

This award, upon appeal to the board, was affirmed, and the board’s decision was affirmed by this court in its judgment of April 8, 1940, Raymond et al. v. Wickersham, supra. … It may here be noted that in Publicker v.

Harvey Aluminum (Incorporated) v. American Screen Products Company

305 F.2d 479 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 25, 1962

It is stated by op-poser that, under United States Steel Corporation v. … Shane Corporation v. Desmond’s, 139 F.2d 502 , 31 CCPA 779; General Shoe Corp. v. Lerner Bros. Mfg. Co., Inc., 254 F.2d 154 , 45 CCPA 872; Tropic-Aire, Inc. v. Approved Products, Inc., 275 F.2d 728 , 47 CCPA 928.

Application of Marco Preda

401 F.2d 825 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 24, 1968

Since my last consideration of this problem, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has considered the same problem in Lindberg v. Brenner, 399 F.2d 990 (D.C. Cir. 1968). … . § 7 as being limited powers in that a board having Acting Examiners-in-Chief cannot include more than one such examiner of primary grade.

Heller v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 368 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1924

In the case of the United States v. … In Frankenberg v.

United States v. Delapenha

12 Ct. Cust. 209 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 19, 1924

In the case of Russo & Co. v. United States ( 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 288 ; T. … The judgment of the board is accordingly reversed.

In re Prinzler

97 F.2d 102 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 6, 1938

Co. v. Coe, 185 Fed. 522 . It is also true that, ordinarily, there is no invention in making parts integral instead of riveting or otherwise fastening them together. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U. … The appeal as to claim 2-is dismissed, and as to the remaining claims the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Liddell

69 F.2d 370 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 19, 1934

Hall v. Stahl, 20 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1192, 65 F. (2d) 594, and cases therein cited. However, Gobbi is not claimed to be a complete anticipation. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.