Case law

Wincharger Corporation v. Wiancko Engineering Company

301 F.2d 927 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 11, 1962

General Aniline & Film Corp. v. Hukill Chemical Corp., Cust. & Pat.App., 287 F.2d 926, 927 . … I would reverse the decision of the Board. . “There is no such thing as a correct pronounciation for a trade-mark. It is pronounced in different ways by different people.” Barton Mfg. Co. v.

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.”

In re Joliot

270 F.2d 954 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 20, 1959

Lavin v. Pierotti, 29 CCPA 1235, 129 F. 2d 883 , 54 USPQ 400 ; Whittier v. Borchardt, 33 CCPA 1023, 154 F. 2d 522 , 69 USPQ 382 ; Hemphill Company v. Coe, 74 App. D.C. 123 , 121 F. 2d 897 , 49 USPQ 484 . … Although the Board of Appeals, in its decision here on review, did not specifically refer to the effect of the earlier decisions relative to U.S.

United States v. Weber

6 Ct. Cust. 234 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1915

Kwong Yuen Shing v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 16 ; T. D. 30774)). … In the case of Bogle v. Magone ( 152 U.

Furuya & Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 371 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1911

This protest was heard by the Board of General Appraisers, and the same was overruled. The importers now.pray for a reversal of that decision of the board. … The appellants cite the vermuth case, United States v. Wile (178 Fed. Rep., 269) as an authority in support of their contention in this case.

United States v. Masson

5 Ct. Cust. 307 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1914

The protest was submitted upon evidence to the Board of General Appraisers. … The foregoing recital immediately directs attention to the case of United States v. Masson ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 363 ; T.

Knight v. King

82 F.2d 817 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 20, 1936

The board says: Since the testimony which. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Ludovici

482 F.2d 958 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 16, 1973

Appellants allege, with respect to their contention that Hamann is not available as a reference under § 102(e), that there is support for them in Alexander Milburn v. … Norton v. Curtiss, 433 F.2d 779 , 57 CCPA 1384 (1970); Langer v. Kaufman, 465 F.2d 915 , 59 CCPA 1261 (1972). The rejection of claims 18-26 under § 102 upon the Hamann reference is accordingly affirmed.

Consolidated Elevator Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 267 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1918

In such cases, following Seeberger v. Wright ( 157 U. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

In re Wickersham

75 F.2d 214 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1935

In Cumming v. … Co. v. Graywood Mfg.

S C M Corporation v. Royal McBee Corporation

395 F.2d 1018 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 6, 1968

However, we are not persuaded that the board correctly concluded that the opposition should be dismissed. … Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp., 263 F.2d 347 , 46 CCPA 790; Sealy, Inc. v. Simmons Co., 265 F.2d 934 , 46 CCPA 857; Bellbrook Dairies, Inc. v.

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.

Application of James L. Jezl, Habet M. Khelghatian and Louise D. Hague

396 F.2d 1009 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1968

We think that is a fair summary of the situation reflected in the references before us, and that the board did err in not treating those references as part of the “scope and content” of the prior art. See Graham v. … The view we take renders it unnecessary to consider at length the double patenting rejection advanced by the board.

United States v. Strasburger & Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 138 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1919

The board sustained these contentions of the importers and the Government appeals. The pertinent parts of the cited paragraphs may be quoted as follows: 161. … The reasoning supporting that decision was set forth in United States v. Wittnauer Co. ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 370 ; T.

Application of Bernard L. Zenitz

333 F.2d 924 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 9, 1964

The examiner held, and the board agreed, that the substitution of CF3 for Cl in the phenothiazines disclosed by Cusic, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. … The board agreed. A case much in point is Westmoreland Specialty Co. v. Hogan, 167 F. 327 , CCA 3 (1909). The patent there involved a celluloid top for a dredge for holding salt.

Schoverling v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 172 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1916

D. 36454); United States v. American Bead Co. ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 132 ; T. D. 36456); Bischoff & Co. v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 138 ; T. D. 36458); United States v. … D. 36493), the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Lever Bros. v. Barcolene Co.

463 F.2d 1107 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 27, 1972

See, e.g., Clinton Detergent Co. v. … .”); Jenkins Publishing Co. v. Metalworking Publishing Co., 50 CCPA 1218, 315 F.2d 955 , 137 USPQ 358 (1963); Bellbrook Dairies, Inc. v.

Application of Blue Lake Producers Cooperative

194 F.2d 126 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 29, 1952

Otard, Inc., v. Italian Swiss Colony, 141 F.2d 706 , 31 C.C.P.A.,Patents, 955; California Piece Dye Works v. California Hand Prints, Inc., 159 F.2d 871 ; 34 C.C. P.A., Patents, 907; Kraft Cheese Co. v. … Baglin v. Cusenier Co., 221 U.S. 580 , 31 S.Ct. 669 , 55 L.Ed. 863 ; Delaware & Hudson Canal Company v. Clark, 13 Wall. 311 , 20 L.Ed. 581 ; Hall v.

Minorsky v. Thilo

63 F.2d 452 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 27, 1933

In support of the first contention, Minorsky cites Parker v. Appert, 8 App. D. C. 270; Pope and Mims v. McLean, 1903 C. D. 186; and Bliss v. Creveling, 1904 C. … Turnbull v. Curtis, 1906 C. D. 67; Dyson v. Automatic Electric Co., 52 App. D. C. 82, 281 F. 586 ; Kinsman v. Kintner, 1908 C.

Henry A. Wess, Inc. v. United States

54 C.C.P.A. 77 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1967

See United States v. Astra Bentwood Furniture Co., 28 CCPA 205, C.A.D. 147, and Cavalier Shipping Company, Inc. v. United States, 39 Cust. Ct. 219 , C.D. 1932. … See, e.g., United States v. Henry W. Peabody & Co., 40 CCPA 59, C.A.D. 498. The burden here, therefore, rests upon the importer to rebut that presumption by competent evidence. See Olavarria & Co., Inc. v.