Case law

Dejonge v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 463 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 16, 1912

See Stiner v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 347 ; T. D. 32079). … Therefore the decision of the board sustaining the collector’s assessment is approved and affirmed.

Application of Thomas F. Facius

408 F.2d 1396 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1969

Accordingly, the board’s decision is affirmed. Affirmed. Judge SMITH participated in the hearing of this case but died before a decision was reached. 1 . … Pierce v.

Slimaker Dress Corporation v. Wardrobe Maker, Inc.

377 F.2d 1017 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1967

377 F.2d 1017 SLIMAKER DRESS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. WARDROBE MAKER, INC., Appellee. Patent Appeal No. 7799. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. May 25, 1967. … See United States Time Corp. v.

In re Baranauckas

228 F.2d 413 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 8, 1955

(Patents) 780, 201 F. 2d 951 , 96 USPQ 411 ; Eastmam Kodak Co. v. Coe, 51 USPQ 407 ; Merck & Co., Inc., et al. v. Marzall, 91 U. S. App. D. C. 50, 197 F. 2d 206 . … Similarly, in Merck & Co., Inc., et al. v.

Rainer v. Unger

333 F.2d 244 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 25, 1964

Co. v. Carborundum Co., 155 F.2d 746 , 69 USPQ 293 )." 26 Our view of the applicable law leaves no room for doubt that we must affirm the board. As this court recently stated in Jepson v. … Segall v. [Marion W.]

Application of J. F. Marr Company, Inc

311 F.2d 814 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1963

But, as the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board noted, side-by-side comparison is not the test. Rex Shoe Company, Inc. v. The Juvenile Shoe Corporation of America, 273 F.2d 179 , 47 CCPA 748. … Roman Meal Co. v. Roman Crest Foods, Inc., 300 F.2d 926 , 49 CCPA 980. Here as in the Roman Meal case, the word portions of the marks are significant aspects of the marks.

In re Freeman

154 F.2d 159 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1946

See Diamond Patent Co. v. S. E. Carr Co., 217 Fed. 400, 405 ; Railroad Supply Co. v. Hart Steel Co. et al., 222 Fed. 261, 272 ; Benjamin Bernard Deitel v. Reich-Ash Corporation and Butler F. Greer, 13 U. S. Pat. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed. Bland, J., dissents.

Romine v. Hodges

70 F.2d 272 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 23, 1934

Jung, Jr., v. William M. Scholl, 17 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 805, 37 F. (2d) 761. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed. ■

Adams v. Stuller

94 F.2d 403 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 7, 1938

Hildreth v. Mastoras, 257 U. S. 27 . … For the reasons stated herein, the decision of the Board of Appeals; is affirmed.

General Foods Corporation v. E-Z Spuds, Inc.

311 F.2d 580 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1963

The board found also that the opposer has since about 1949 used the word “KRINKLES” at various times alone or as a component of several trademarks for dry rice cereal. … Carlisle Shoe Co. v. Societe Anonyme: Roger Fare & Cie, 278 F.2d 519 , 47 CCPA 966. Under such circumstances, we must reverse the decision appealed from. Reversed. 1 .

Sperry v. Aufiero

134 F.2d 174 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1943

C. 86, the horse-collar in Couch v. Barnett, 23 App. D. C. 446, the snap hook in Schartow v. Schleicher, 35 App. D. C. 347, and the clamp for holding the blade of a safety-razor in position involved in Gaisman v. … Wilson et al. v. Sherts et al., 23 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 914, 81 F. (2d) 755; Smith v. Place, 23 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1260, 84 F. (2d) 196; Myers v. Roethel, *916 24 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1213, 90 F. (2d) 122; Smith v.

United States v. Foo Chow Importing Co.

14 Ct. Cust. 414 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1927

Importer’s protest, so far as it relates to the 226 empty boxes, was abandoned before the board and is not considered here. … paragraph 407 of the act which provides for — ■ * * * all articles not specially provided for, wholly or partly manufactured of * * * bamboo * * * 45 per centum ad valorem— relying as authority for that claim upon Bough v.

Application of David G. Braithwaite

379 F.2d 594 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 5, 1967

The record shows that the Board of Appeals here consisted of an examiner-in-chief and two acting examiners-in-chief. Appellants do not challenge the legality of that board. … Hays v. Brenner, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 96 , 357 F.2d 287 (1966).

West Disinfecting Company v. Samuel A. Onorato (Valtex Products Company Assignee Substituted)

242 F.2d 197 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 8, 1957

Baker Co. v. Lebow Brothers, 150 F.2d 580 , 32 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1206, and Brewster-Ideal Chocolate Co. v. Dairy Maid Confectionery Co., 62 F.2d 844 , 20 C.C.P.A., Patents, 848. … He was testifying in the board room of his own company and presumably records were readily available to him.

Kaufmann & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 117 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 29, 1914

D. 32958); United States v. Helmrath ( 145 Fed., 36, 37 ). … See also United States v. Richards ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 537 ; T. D. 31548).

Swank, Inc. v. Ravel Perfume Corp. D.B.A. Ravel N.Y.

438 F.2d 622 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1971

438 F.2d 622 SWANK, INC., Appellant, v. RAVEL PERFUME CORP. d.b.a. Ravel N.Y., Appellee. Patent Appeal No. 8462. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. February 25, 1971. William R. … Accordingly, the board found, and we agree, that: 11 In the present case, "GREEN JADE" and "JADE EAST" do not look alike, they differ substantially in sound, and the meanings thereof are not the same.

Application of Montgomery

214 F.2d 136 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1954

In this latter respect, the board was of the opinion that patentability could not be predicated on the mere arrangement of printed matter. … See In re Clark, 58 F.2d 455 , 19 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1166; In re Sterling, supra; Conover v. Coe, 69 App.D.C. 144 , 99 F.2d 377 ; and In re Rice, 132 F.2d 140 , 30 C.C.P.A., Patents, 730.

Lombard v. Howard

213 F.2d 328 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1954

See Shultz v. Dunham, 67 F.2d 501 , 21 C.C.P.A., Patents, 706. … From that premise he concludes that the board erred in view of the rule laid down in Permutit Co. v. Graver Corp., 284 U.S. 52 , 52 S.Ct. 53, 55 , 76 L.Ed. 163 .

United States v. Wyle

14 Ct. Cust. 297 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1926

The court below held that since candlesticks, in the case of Bloch & Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 5 , T. … We think this case is decided by the case of Solomon v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 353 , T.

In re Douglas

48 F.2d 392 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 31, 1931

Appellant shows that the validity of appellant’s prior patent lias been established in the courts and contends that the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in theuase of Douglas Pectin Corporation v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.