Case law

Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 386 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1911

This court in Illfelder v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 109 ; T. … The decision of the board is reversed.

Woelm v. Hasselquist

62 F.2d 367 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 3, 1932

A detailed description of’the operation of the respective devices is given in the opinion by Judge Hatfield in the companion case, 3038, Woelm v. Hasselquist, 20 C. C. P. A. … Woelm v. Hasselquist, supra. The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. Fondeville

7 Ct. Cust. 135 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1916

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest and the Government appealed. The merchandise seems to be identical with that which was passed upon by this court in the case of United States v. Gredelue ( 5 Ct. … See Seeberger v. Hardy ( 150 U. S., 420, 424 ).

In the Matter of the Application of Jacques Rousso

222 F.2d 729 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1955

Wood & Sons v. Abelson’s, Inc., 3 Cir., 74 F.2d 895 , may possibly be so read, and something very close to it appeared in Graff, Washbourne & Dunn v. Webster, 2 Cir., 195 F. 522 ; Dominick & Haff v. Wallace & Sons Mfg. … Co., 2 Cir., 209 F. 223 ; and Mygatt v. Schaffer, 2 Cir., 218 F. 827 . When Steffens v.

Bloomingdale Bros. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 104 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 14, 1917

. *106 The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importers appealed. … Moreover, whether classification under paragraphs 305 and 307 should be determined by similarity of material or similarity of the animals which produced it seems to have been definitely settled by this court in Crimmins v.

Peabody & Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 204 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 20, 1917

The appellants claim that the merchandise is of the same character as that passed upon by this court in United States v. Winter & Smillie ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 522 ; T. D. 33939), and in Graser-Rothe v. … In the case of the Rattan & Cane Co. v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 1 ; T.

Lewis v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 22 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 20, 1925

.— United States v. Shallus, 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 168, 171, 172 , T. D. 37999. … The judgment of the board is therefore affirmed.

Wicks v. Friendly

55 F.2d 424 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1932

Martocello v. Kobash, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1095, 39 F. (2d) 677. … His decision was affirmed by the board of examiners in chief. This was prior to the statute which made the decision of the Board of Appeals final, and Friendly appealed to the commissioner.

In re Zonenstein

172 F.2d 599 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1949

See Tyler v. St. Amand, 17 App. D. C. 464, 1901 C. D. 301; In re Joseph Eifel, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 582, 35 F. (2d) 70, 3 U. S. Pat. Q. 114; and In re Patrick P. La Montague, 19 C. C. P. A. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Colby v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 234 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 8, 1912

This protest was overruled by the board, and the importers now appeal to this court for a reversal of that decision. … Justice Blatchford in the case of Merritt v. Stephani ( 108 U. S., 106 ), and is directly in point: In the opinion of this court in Schmidt v. Badger ( 107 U.

In re Nelson

470 F.2d 643 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 29, 1972

He then correctly states the law, as laid down in Graham v. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. .

Cooper v. Hubbell

53 F.2d 1072 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 17, 1931

In the case of Lewis v. Strom, 52 App. D. … Foster v. Antisdel, 14 App. D. C. 552.

In re Febrey

135 F.2d 751 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1943

The board agreed with this holding of the examiner. … While it is true as noted in Barrett v.

Willits & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 499 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 24, 1923

Tbe board overruled tbe protest and tbe importer appealed. … In Patton v. United States ( 159 U.

Constance v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 435 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1923

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

Application of Constantin Chilowsky

306 F.2d 908 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 20, 1962

The asserted legal basis of the first approach is a phrase out of Webster Loom Co. v. … Higgins et al., 105 U.S. 580, 586 , 26 L.Ed. 1177 , from which case appellant quotes the “principle” which he thinks should apply, which he calls the “Webster v.

Janette v. Folds

38 F.2d 361 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 3, 1930

On appeal, after a like exhaustive examination and discussion of the testimony, the Board of Appeals came to the same conclusion. These decisions, concurring, will not be disturbed unless manifestly wrong. Beidler v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Central Commercial Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 131 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 16, 1921

—Paterson’s Fishery Laws (pp. 9-25); Fennings v. Lord Grenville (1 Taunton); Littledale v. Scaith (1 Taunton [footnote] 243); Hogarth v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore affirmed.

Golding Bros. v. United States

22 C.C.P.A. 590 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1935

Co., Inc. v. United States, 21 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 395, T. D. 46926, which involved the same merchandise and the same appraisement as is here involved. … United States v. Baldwin Universal Co., 18 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 394, T. D. 44641; Downing & Co. et al. v. United States, 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 293 , T. D. 42873.

In re Schweitzer

141 F.2d 711 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1944

The Board of Appeals reversed the rejection of the examiner on- the grounds of functionality, but in all other respects affirmed his decision. … For the reasons stated the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.