Case law

Asia Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 514 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 24, 1923

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importers appealed. The merchandise covered by the protests is umezuke, plums in sake dregs, and benishoga. … See "Sake,” Standard Dictionary; Komada & Co. v. United States ( 215 U. S. 392 ).

Schneider Bros. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 519 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1926

Irwin v. United States, 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 296 ; Lehn & Fink v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 359 . … As has been pointed out in the decision of the Board of General Appraisers, the word “diameter” is applied by the Tariff Act of 1922 to the thickness of wire in several instances.

F. W. Myers & Co. v. United States

16 Ct. Cust. 171 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1928

Bradbury v. … We see no reason for departing from our decision in United States v. Tower & Sons, supra. The judgment is affirmed.

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation

287 F.2d 194 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1961

At the outset we are required to examine the present record to determine what, if any, factors are here present which were not before us in Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company v. … We therefore affirm the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Affirmed. 1 . Registration No. 621,044 issued Feb. 14, 1956 on application filed Apr. 7, 1954.

In re Loiseleur

158 F.2d 309 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 9, 1946

See Winkelmann v. Calvert, 33 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1206, 154 F. (2d) 1012, 1014, 69 USPQ 406, 408 . … Under the authorities hereinbefore cited, the appealed claims were properly rejected, and the decision of the Board of Appeals is accordingly affirmed.

Application of William Carls

327 F.2d 522 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 13, 1964

Thus appellant considers it unnecessary to conform the coefficient of expansion of the main housing V with sleeve 71 and the movable spool. … In affirming the examiner’s rejection, the board adopted the reasons of the examiner.

In re Jacobson

148 F.2d 1011 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 9, 1945

The general rule is *973 well known to be to the contrary (see Deutsch et al. v. Ball, 22 C. C. P. A. … The decision of the board is affirmed.

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 ).

United States v. Allen Forwarding Co.

42 C.C.P.A. 33 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1954

term in the case of United States v. … Shalom & Co., Inc. v. United States, 22 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 85, T.

American Express Co. v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 146 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 12, 1913

The board overruled the protest, and the importers have appealed to this court. … , or wood pulp, or the wood used in the manufacture of such paper, board, or wood pulp, or the wood pulp used in-the manufacture of such paper or board.

In Re Shimer

69 F.2d 556 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 2, 1934

The decision of the Examiner was affirmed in all respects by the Board of Appeals. … The following eases are in point and add no such limitations to the doctrine as are stated in Re Martin, supra; Blackford v. Wilder, 28 App. D. C. 535; New Departure Mfg. Co. v. Robinson, 39 App. D.

United States v. Mills, Duflot & Co.

10 Ct. Cust. 49 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1920

Krusi v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 168 ; T. D. 31213); United States v. Hamburger Levine Co. ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 217 ; T. D. 34382); Loewenthal & Co. v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 209 ; T.D. 35464). … In the case of Krusi v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust.

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.

United States v. Louis Wolf & Co.

17 C.C.P.A. 310 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 25, 1929

Appellee further contends that the issues in this case are controlled by the decision of United States v. Field & Co., 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 543 , T. … These cases, as well as the more recent case of Wanamaker v. United States, 17 C. C. P. A. 251, T.

Revillon Frères v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 209 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 12, 1911

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

United States v. Owen

4 Ct. Cust. 480 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 11, 1913

Magone v. Weiderer ( 159 U. S., 555 ) ; Meyer v. Cadwalader ( 89 Fed., 963 ) ; Vandiver v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 194 ; T. D. 31219) ; United States v. Marsching ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 216 ; T. D. 31257). … The decision of the board is reversed.

In Re Gerard Meunier

434 F.2d 657 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 10, 1970

V. Lupo, Washington, D. C., of counsel. Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and RE, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation. … A prima facie case of obviousness has been made out and the board's opinion should be affirmed.

Smith v. Nevin

73 F.2d 940 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 10, 1934

The Board of Appeals came to the same conclusion and affirmed the decision of the Examiner of Interferences. … Wickers v. McKee, 29 App. D. C. 4; Malcom v. Richards, 47 App. D. C. 582; Jardine v. Hartog, 36 F.(2d) 606 , 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 764; James v. Stimson, 49 F.(2d) 493 , 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1255; Gamble v.

Application of Hollman

213 F.2d 323 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1954

Lindley v. Shepherd, 58 App.D.C. 31 , 24 F.2d 606, 1928 , C.D. 97; Edgerton v. Kingsland, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 1 , 168 F.2d 121 . … Lindley v. Shepherd, supra, and Neumair v. Malocsay, 77 F.2d 622 , 22 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1349.

United States v. Veith

5 Ct. Cust. 304 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1914

In United States v. … In Blumenthal v.