Case law

United States v. Walker

5 Ct. Cust. 215 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 7, 1914

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest.. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Geo. A. Dickel Co. v. General Mills, Inc.

317 F.2d 954 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1963

The opinions of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and the majority seem to base their dismissal of the opposition solely on differences in the goods to which the mark is applied by the respective parties. … As pointed out in Hollywood Water Heater Co. v.

Application of Anthony J. Urbanic and Francis J. Maurer

319 F.2d 267 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 27, 1963

See Segall v. Sims et al., 276 F.2d 661 , 47 CCPA 886. 4 . . -That íact-’haámot befen-,denied-,by • lants. … ^copqlymers'.v'.of (30 ip,ep ,c,ept, butadiene and 40 per cent methyl isopropenyl. ketone to. support the “12.5” in app.qaled ,,.

Lyons Export & Import, Inc. v. United States

461 F.2d 830 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1972

See National Labor Relations Board v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, 341 U.S. 675 (1951); United States v. American Trucking Assoc., Inc., 310 U.S. 534 (1940); Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1 (1965). … National *146 Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 U.S. 111, 131 (1944).

Gibbs v. Wohl

55 F.2d 494 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 9, 1932

1883 (22 Stats. 625), and that said the Government of the United States is the real party in interest in the interference proceedings appealed to this court, in the names of said Gibbs and Conover, from the decision of the Board … The court, therefore, orders and directs that no fees shall be required to be paid to the clerk of this court, as provided by Buie V of the court, for filing and docketing said appeal or for supervising the printing of the

T. M. Duche & Sons, Inc. v. United States

44 C.C.P.A. 60 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1957

One of the cases we there cited with approval was Brown & Co. v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 415 , T. … In Brown & Co. v.

In re Andes Candies Inc.

478 F.2d 1264 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 14, 1973

Roselux Chemical Co., Inc. v. … We agree with the board that appellant’s evidence is insufficient to establish recognition of the mark as such by purchasers.

Application of Alfred W. Krogman

223 F.2d 497 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 1, 1955

art in rejecting the claims. “(3) The Board improperly combined references in rejecting the claims. “(4) The Board failed to recognize that there is no sound reason for including ixtle and sisal in the same botanical family … In the case of Fowler v.

Lunham v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 137 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 3, 1924

Martin, Presiding Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from a so-called re-reappraisement of imported merchandise made by a board of three general appraisers in proceedings begun under the tariff act … The issue is identical in *138 principle witb tbafc decided concurrently herewith by this court in the case of Scaramelli v. United States ( 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 134 ; T. D. 40056).

United States v. Golden Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 229 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 25, 1919

We incline on the whole to sustain the judgment of the board. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In re Atkinson

102 F.2d 882 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1939

See Gillette Safety Razor Co. v. Hawley Hardware Co., 60 F. (2d) 1019 (reversed on grounds which did not involve the foregoing principle in 64 F. (2d) 10). See also Consolidated Window Glass Co. v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. Innis

7 Ct. Cust. 3 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1916

The Board of General Appraisers held that the merchandise was not covered by the language of the provision cited, and that it was therefore relegated for classification to the residuary provision for chemical salts and compounds … Breck & Son v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 26 ; T. D. 31576); Maltus & Ware v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 525 ; T. D. 36146). Affirmed.

United States v. Baumgarten & Co.

2 Ct. Cust. 321 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1911

Justice Gray in the case of Tutton v. Viti ( 108 U. … In this view of the case, the decision of the board is therefore affirmed.

Hecht & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 261 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1914

Zucker v. Magone ( 37 Fed., 776 ); Levi v. United States ( 87 Fed., 193 ); Stone v. Heineman ( 100 Fed., 940 ). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. Schneider Bros. & Co.

15 Ct. Cust. 16 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1927

Leather: All leather not specially provided for; harness, * * * finished or unfinished, and not specially provided for; * * * The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest and the Government appealed. … Maddock v. Magone, 152 U. S. 368 at p. 371 . *18 Harness, as used in paragraph 1606, commonly means the equipment put upon a draft animal in order that it may draw, move, or pull a vehicle, implement, or weight.

In re Dixon

44 F.2d 881 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1930

The law is well settled by Hotel Security, etc., v. Lorraine Co (C. C. A.) 160 F. 467 , 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 665; Berardini v. Tocci (C. C. A.) 200 F. 1021 ; Moore v. United States, 50 Ct. Cl. 120 ; In re Moeser, 27 App. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

In re Graf

87 F.2d 218 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 25, 1937

We are in agreement with the decision of the Board of Appeals. … Appellant relies for supporting-authority upon the cases of Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Pope, 210 Fed. 443 , and Rand, McNally Co. v. Exchange Scrip Book Co., 187 Fed. 984 .

United States v. McCord Brady Co.

8 Ct. Cust. 208 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 20, 1917

In the first, Wright & Graham Co. v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 453 ; T. … Accordingly the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is modified.

United States v. Zenith Radio Corp.

562 F.2d 1209 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 28, 1977

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 , 398 (1821). The clearest complete explanation of the complex Russian sugar-scheme in Downs appears in the Board of General Appraisers’ opinion, Downs v. … For example, in Copper Queen Mining Co. v. Territorial Board of Equalization, 206 U.S. 474, 479 (1907), the Court was faced with an 18-year-old administrative interpretation of the statute.

Shaw & Co. v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 147 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1926

Shaw & Co. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 226 , at pages 228 and 229. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.