Case law

In Re Rhodes

80 F.2d 525 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 6, 1936

For, as stated in the case of Blackford v. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

United States v. Strasburger & Co.

8 Ct. Cust. 376 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 30, 1918

The contentions made herein are the same as those made in United States v. Wittnauer Co. ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 370 ; T. D. 37628), decided concurrently herewith, and ruled by the decision therein. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. Ceasar

3 Ct. Cust. 214 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 8, 1912

The Government brings this appeal, alleging that these chiffon bands, although under the case of United States v. Wertheimer Bros. ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 515 ; T. … The result is that the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In re Sulkowski

487 F.2d 920 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1973

In support, she cited Riester v. … She considered the same criteria to be followed in In re Nathan, 328 F.2d 1005 , 51 CCPA 1059 (1964), which citesRies-ter with approval and in Spero v. Rin-gold, 377 F.2d 652 , 54 CCPA 1407 *922 (1967).

Price-Pfister Brass Mfg. Co. v. Milwaukee Faucets, Inc.

311 F.2d 817 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1963

SMITH, Judge. ' This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 131 U.S.P.Q. 492 , sustaining appellee’s opposition instituted under Section 13 of the Trademark Act of 1946 ( 15 U.S.C. § 1063 … circumstances vary to such an extent in trademark decisions as to render prior decisions of limited value, we think the facts and circumstances of this case warrant repetition here of our observations in Wincharger Corporation v.

In Re Rossman

194 F.2d 711 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 18, 1952

Hunt Co. v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals should be reversed. . In re Tourtellotte, 115 F.2d 344 , 28 C.C.P.A.,Patents, 720; In re Rolph, 102 F.2d 875 , 26 C.C.P.A.,Patents, 1064. . McCord Corp. v.

General Electric Co. v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 398 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 24, 1913

The board overruled the protest, but declined to affirm the decision of the collector upon the authority of the decision by this court in Schloss Co. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 459 , T. D. 33038). … Arthur v. Butterfield ( 125 U. S., 70 ); Arthur v. Sussfield ( 96 U. S., 128 ).

Application of Karl Folkers and Clifford H. Shunk

344 F.2d 970 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 6, 1965

As was said in Webster Loom Co. v. … Potter v. Tone, 36 App.D.C. 181 (1911).

American Smelting & Refining Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 507 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1926

The board held, in an illuminating opinion by De Vries, G. … This court had held in American Smelting As Refining Co. v.

In re Kaisling

44 F.2d 863 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1930

Both the examiner and the Board of Appeals held against appellant, and the question is before us on appeal from the decision of the latter. … Co. v. Unionwerke, 218 Fed. 847 ; Ex parte Prouty, 1919 C. D. 62, and Bowers v. San Francisco Bridge Co., 69 Fed. 640 . These several cases we have examined.

Application of Alexander R. Surrey and George Y. Lesher

319 F.2d 233 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1963

The board affirmed the rejection of claims 10-14 “for the reasons set forth” by this court in In re Larsen, 292 F.2d 531 , 49 CCPA 711. … the unobvious local anesthetic action possessed by the final products (carbamates) made directly from the intermediates (chloroformates) is sufficient to prove patentability according to the standard set forth in Parker v.

United States v. Durbrow

6 Ct. Cust. 65 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1915

I have quoted this opinion in full because to my mind it points unerringly to the results which will follow the opinion of the court in this and the- case of the United States v. Kastor & Bros., concurrently decided. … For reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in the Kastor case, I would reverse the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers.

Toledo Shipbuilding Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 342 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 13, 1918

United States v. Outerbridge & Co. ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 223 ; T. D. 36511). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In re Babcock

110 F.2d 665 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 8, 1940

Claim 44 was also rejected by the examiner upon the same ground, but as to this claim his action was reversed by the board. … The case of Podlesack v. McInnerney, 26 App. D. C. 399, was similar in many respects to the case at bar.

United States v. Hogan

5 Ct. Cust. 1 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 15, 1913

The Ringk case, however, was later appealed to this court; the board’s decision therein was reversed; and the collector’s assessment of the merchandise therein was sustained. See United States v. Ringk ( 4 Ct. Cust. … The decision of the board is therefore reversed.

United States v. Thomas

15 Ct. Cust. 295 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 14, 1927

The claim of the importers was sustained by the trial court) Justice Brown dissenting. … United States v. Aetna Explosives Co., 256 U. S. 402 , and United States v. McLaughlin & Freeman, supra, cited by the Government, are not in point.

American Home Products Corp. v. B. F. Ascher & Co.

473 F.2d 903 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 22, 1973

Industria Española v. National Silver Co., 459 F. 2d 1049 , 59 CCPA- (1972). Nor can the word ASCHER in the latter be disregarded. As this Court pointed out in Rockwood Chocolate Co., Inc. v. … We agree with the board that the interviews themselves can be given no probative value as a “survey.”

Pennzoil Co. v. Hercules Powder Co.

95 F.2d 339 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 28, 1938

Baldwin Co. v. Robertson et al., *971 265 U. S. 168 ; Alexandrine v. Coe, 63 App. D. C. 227, 71 F. (2d) 348. … American Steel Foundries v. Robertson, 262 U. S. 209 ; Baldwin Co. v. Howard Co., 256 U. S. 35, 39 ; Atkins & Co. v. Moore, 212 U. S. 285, 291 . The present case presents this difference.

Talbot v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 415 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 3, 1911

United States v. Grossfeld, 1 Ct. Custs. Appls., 189 (T. … United States v. Hartwell Lumber Co. (142 Fed. Rep., 432), United States v. Cordero, 1 Ct. Custs. Appls., 107 (T. D. 31114).

Wilson v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 255 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1915

United States v. Haaker & Co. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 471, 473 ; T. D. 33884), Arthur v. Lahey ( 96 U. S., 112, 113 ), Vietor v. Arthur ( 104 U. S., 498, 499 ), Robertson v. Glendenning ( 132 U. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.