Case law

In re MacLean

90 F.2d 108 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1937

The Board of Appeals was of the same opinion. … The solicitor has cited as supporting authority for his contentions the case of Pickering et al. v. McCullough et al., 104 U. S., 310 ; In re Cross, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 788, 53 F. (2d) 902; Robbins v.

Bainbridge v. Walton

104 F.2d 808 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1939

(See Kitchen v. Smith, 1913 C. D. 336, 39 D. C. App. 500, and Dunbar v. Schellenger, 1906 C. D. 428.) … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. Leonard W. Moritz Co.

30 C.C.P.A. 134 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 26, 1942

United States v. C. J. Tower & Sons, 24 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 304, T. D. 48754. … Gallagher & Ascher v. United States, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 38 , T. D. 41548. The facts in the case at bar are very similar to those in the case of United States v. Japan Import Co., Inc., 28 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 71, C.

United States v. Seward

9 Ct. Cust. 18 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 26, 1918

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest and we find ample testimony in the record to support that action. … It was therefore entitled to free entry under the provisions of paragraph 498 of the act of 1913, as claimed and held by the board. Affirmed.

In re Murray

53 F.2d 541 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1931

A similar holding was made in Star Bucket Pump Co. v. Butler Mfg. … For these reasons, the decision of the Board of Appeals is aflrmed.

United States v. Manufacturers' Paper Co.

4 Ct. Cust. 110 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1913

United States v. Tamm & *113 Co. ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 425 ; T. D. 32173); United States v. Stouffer ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 67 ; T. D. 32351); Waddell & Co. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 406 ; T. D. 32989). … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed and reliquidation ordered pursuant to the views herein expressed.

Bischoff v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 138 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1916

D. 31432); and Mark Cross Co. v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 377 ; T. … See in this connection Hall v. United States ( 131 Fed., 684 ; T. D. 25340); same case ( 136 Fed., 774 ); and Thomas v. Wanamaker ( 129 Fed., 92 ). Paragraph 356 does not contain the n. s. p. f. provision.

United States v. American Express Co.

8 Ct. Cust. 157 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1917

—v. trans. To furnish, adorn, or work with beads. New International Encyclopedia.: . Bead. … American Bead Co. v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 18 ; T. D. 36259); Loewenthal v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 209 ; T. D. 35464). It is true that in Loewenthal v.

Seng v. Dann

542 F.2d 568 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 7, 1976

Duffy v. Tegtmeyer, 489 F.2d 745 (Cust. & Pat.App.1974). The court concludes that petitioners have not shown that the action of the board complained of constituted an abuse of discretion. … Weil v. Dann, 503 F.2d 562 (Cust. & Pat.App.1974). IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the petition be denied. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is moot.

Puerto Rico Distillers, Inc. v. Ko-Operatieve Wijnbouwers Vereniging Van Zuid-Afrika Beperkt

463 F.2d 1353 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 7, 1972

While we agree with PRD and the board that rum and brandy are "similar or related", the board found the marks here "clearly distinguishable" and we pass directly to that finding. … We print the trademarks for comparative purposes: *1242 We consider the trademarks, as did the board, in their entireties, United-Hagie Hybrids, Inc. v.

In re Carpenter

151 F.2d 207 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 22, 1945

Co. v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. 324 U. S. 320 , 64 USPQ 412 , decided March 5, 1945; In re Gauerke, 24 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 725, 86 F. (2d) 330, 31 USPQ 330 , and In re Kepler, 30 C. C. P. A. … The decision of the board is affirmed.

Stengel v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 137 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1911

See also United States v. Prosser ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 22 ; T. D. 30848); Meyer & Co. v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 506 ; T. D. 31531). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. Sandoz Chemical Works

14 Ct. Cust. 21 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1926

United States v. Mercadante, 72 Fed. 46 ; Bartram v. United States, 77 Fed. 604. The case here is similar in principle to Dunlap v. United States, 173 U. S. 65 . … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Drakenfeld & Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 512 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1912

This protest was heard upon testimony by the Board of General Appraisers and was overruled. … A similar question arose in the case of Fink v. United States ( 170 U. S., 584 ). In that case the article involved was muriate of cocaine.

De Walt, Inc. v. Magna Power Tool Corp.

289 F.2d 656 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1961

The board did, however, make the following statement from which we think it may reasonably be inferred that the board did consider the term to be descriptive: 12 "* * * opposer and its franchised dealers have, since September … California Cyanide Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 40 F.2d 1003 , 17 CCPA 1198 ("Calcyanide"), Model Brassiere Co., Inc., v.

In re Carlson

44 F.2d 427 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1930

White v. Converse, 20 F. (2d) 311; 365 O. G. 4 ; Elite Mfg. Co. v. Ashland Mfg. Co., 235 Fed. 893, 895 ; Chas. Boldt Co. v. Nivison-Weiskopf Co., 194 Fed. 871 ; King Ventilating Co. v. St. … James Ventilating Co., 26 F. (2d) 357, 359; Straus Gas Iron Co. v. William M. Crane Co., 235 Fed. 126 . The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In Re Trester

36 F.2d 133 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1929

As is said in Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., 159 U. S. 477, 486 , 16 S. Ct. 53, 54 , 40 L. … Tn other respects, however, we are in agreement with the decision of the Board of Appeals that claims 1 to 6, inclusive, and 8, were properly rejected. Affirmed.

In re Husted

39 F.2d 713 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1930

It is contended by the examiner, as well as by the Board of Appeals, that the equivalent of these lugs is found in the Shank reference. … Cantrell v. Wallick, 117 U. S. 689 ; Shakespeare v. Enterprise Mfg. Co., 211 Fed. 477 ; Superior Skylight Co. v. Kuhnla, 273 Fed. 482 .

In re Ornum

686 F.2d 937 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 5, 1982

Underwood v. Gerber, 149 U.S. 224 [ 13 S.Ct. 854 , 37 L.Ed. 710 ] (1893).] … The decision of the board is affirmed. AFFIRMED. .

Nystrom v. Janeway

173 F.2d 263 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 1, 1949

While in a different setting, we think, what was said by this court in the case of Robbins v. Wettlaufer, 23 C. C. P. A. … For the reasons hereinbefore set out, the decision of the Board of Interference Examiners is affirmed.