Case law

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.

McGettrick v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 64 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1921

The Board of General Appraisers, held, first, that about 27 per cent of all the importations were commercially available for use as bags and that such bags were dutiable at 10 per cent ad valorem under *66 paragraph 281; … The case of Central Vermont Railway Co. v. United States ( 10 Ct. Cust. Appls., 31 ; T.

United States v. Gavin

7 Ct. Cust. 292 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 2, 1916

The Board of General Appraisers in a long line of decisions, cited in the above case, had ruled against this contention. … Woolworth v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 120 -122; T. D. 31119), United States v. Hatters’ Fur Exchange ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 198 -202; T. D. 31237), United States v. Matagrin (1 Ct.

In re Meyer

688 F.2d 789 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 16, 1982

In Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. … In Gottschalk v.

In re Allen

88 F.2d 705 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 29, 1937

Certain features of the Comstock patents were referred to and discussed by the Board. … Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 93 U.S. 486 , 23 L.Ed. 952 .

Application of Fred N. Hill

284 F.2d 955 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 22, 1960

The board relied solely on Carter and Aries in affirming the examiner’s rejection of all the claims and, accordingly, we will limit our discussion to those two references. … Appellant’s argument that the references are mutually exclusive since they utilize different silver salts and methods of activating the catalyst (thermal decomposition v. hydrogen reduction) has been considered but is not

Quigley v. Zimmerman

73 F.2d 499 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 3, 1934

On appeal, the Board of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Examiner of Interferences. … See Bloodhart v. Levernier, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 917, 64 F. (2d) 367, and cases cited therein. So, the real issue in the case in whether or not the amendment so made involves “ new matter.”

Elliott v. Barker

481 F.2d 1337 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 16, 1973

It is not a report of scientific research or tests as found inadmissible in Alpert v. … Appellant also relies on Schnick v. Fenn, 277 F.2d 935 , 47 CCPA 1174 (1960), as showing that the board erred in holding his tests to be insufficient, but that case is readily distinguished on the facts.

Comstock v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 502 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 17, 1925

D. 31005); Drakenfeld & Óo. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 512 ; T. D. 32248); Drakenfeld & Co. v. United States ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 124 ; T. D. 37979). … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

D. H. Baldwin Co. v. United States

577 F.2d 704 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1978

In Edwards v. … Brown Shoe Co. v. Commissioner, 339 U.S. 583 , 70 S.Ct. 820 , 94 L.Ed. 1081 (1950).

United States v. Scruggs-Vandervoort-Barney Dry Goods Co.

18 C.C.P.A. 279 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1930

Justice Brown. Is it the extra thread in the design that makes it drawn work? The Witness. Yes, sir. Justice Brown. Isn’t that drawm work? The Witness. … In the case of Massce & Co. v. United States, 18 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 243, T.

Thompson v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 341 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1914

The Board of General Appraisers found as a fact in the case that up to the time of her marriage Mary Van Alen Thompson was a resident of England. We think this finding of the board is amply supported by the testimony. … Clyatt v. United States ( 197 U. S., 207, 219 ).

Shaw & Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 88 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 9, 1924

The question of whether such whisky was subject to the tax of $2.20 per proof gallon under the said section 600 (a) of the act of 1919 has been decided adversely to appellant in the case of Shaw & Co. v. … The Board of General Appraisers overruled both protests, relying as to protest No. 944169 upon the authority of Shaw & Co. v.

Johnson & Johnson v. Veon Chemical Corporation

301 F.2d 952 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1962

Nachman & Son, Inc. v. E. … A. 747; Princess Pat, Ltd. v. Tursi, 230 F.2d 440 , 43 C.C.P.A. 795 .”

United States v. Burne

4 Ct. Cust. 298 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1913

Swan v. Arthur ( 103 U. S., 597, 598 ); Arthur v. Butterfield ( 125 U. S., 70, 75 ); Seeberger v. Schlesinger ( 152 U. S., 581, 587 ); Barber v. Schell ( 107 U. S., 617, 621 ). … In United States v.

In re Johnson

175 F.2d 789 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1949

See also Smith v. Whitman Saddle Company, 148 U. S. 674, 679 ; J. R. Wood & Sons, Inc. v. Abelson’s, Inc., 74 F. (2d) 895; Forestek Plating & Mfg. Co. v. Knapp-Monarch Co., 106 F. (2d) 554. … Accordingly, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. By reason of illness, Hatfield, Judge, was not present at the argument of this case and did not participate in the decision..

In re Johnson

162 F.2d 924 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 17, 1947

Mead Johnson & Company v. Hillman’s, Inc., 135 F. (2d) 955, 57 USPQ 448 . The opinion of the court in that case is a part of the record before us. … General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp. et al., 304 U. S. 364 ; In re Krasnow, 33 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 764, 152 F. (2d) 969, 68 USPQ 210 .

Harvard University v. U. S. Department of Commerce, Domestic & International Business Administration

576 F.2d 925 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 8, 1978

Both parties have agreed that the decision and judgment of this court dated December 1, 1977 in the consolidated appeals of Yale University v. … Department of Commerce, Domestic and International Business Administration, Office of Import Programs, No. 76-18, and Brown University v.