Case law

Sunway Fruit Products, Inc. v. Productos Caseros, S.A.

318 F.2d 332 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1963

Searle & Company v. Chas. Pfizer & Company, 231 F.2d 316 (7th Cir. 1956); Chicago Dietetic Supply House, Inc. v. … Nestle Company, Inc. v.

Application of John R. Johnson

369 F.2d 1018 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1966

Subsequently, as the bottle advances to the stages indicated III, IV, and V, on Fig. 3, the tear drop will be progressively merged into the coating at the bottom of the bottle, as indicated diagrammatically in the sketches … labeled III, IV, and V of Fig. 4, whereupon the tear drop is eliminated and merged into a smooth coating at the bottom of the bottle.

Nairn Linoleum Co. v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 394 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 24, 1913

The case of Kenyon v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 344 ; T. D 33529) is wholly dissimilar. … A case decided by the board, G. A. 7100 (T.

In re Denning

108 F.2d 239 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 26, 1939

We are in agreement with the decision of the Board of Appeals. We have carefully considered the various arguments made by appellant and especially the one in -which he cites the case of Seabury v. Am. Ende, 152 U. … As to the remaining claims, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Application of Mogen David Wine Corporation

372 F.2d 539 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 16, 1967

the Principal Register. 24 The solicitor, however, in a very extensive brief filed in the present appeal argues that our previous decision is "erroneous" in view of the Supreme Court's decisions in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. … Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 , 84 S.Ct. 784 , 11 L.Ed.2d 661 , and Compco Corp. v.

United States v. Lüchow

7 Ct. Cust. 301 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 2, 1916

This contention was put forth in United States v. Cummings ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 291 ; T. … The case of Hollender v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 406 ; T. D. 33850) followed. That case related to beer.

Phelan v. Green

71 F.2d 298 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 12, 1934

In the ease of Kane v. … The decision in the Kane v. Podlesak Case was based upon the decision in Rowntree v. Sloan, supra, the court stating: “In Rowntree v.

Premier Dental Products Co. v. United States

28 C.C.P.A. 44 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 6, 1940

See United States v. Mills & Gibbs, 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 422 , T. D. 37667, and Cunard Steamship Co. v. United States, T. D. 46924. Following the decision in the case of Premier Dental Products Co. v. … Hempstead & Son v. United States, T. D. 23489, G. A. 5070, 5 Treas. Dec. 64 , decided in 1902 by the Board of General Appraisers, now the United States Customs Court.

Marriott-Hot Shoppes, Inc. v. McKee Baking Company, D. B. A. Mighty Mike Bakery

442 F.2d 978 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1971

Hot Shoppes v. Borden Co., 404 F.2d 999 , 56 CCPA 891 (1968). Many of the arguments appellant makes here are the same it made there, and we again reject them for the same reasons. … Accordingly, the decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed.

In re Migrdichian

156 F.2d 250 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 27, 1946

The case cited by the board, Tolfree v. Wetzler et al., 25 F. (2d) 553 (C. C. A. 3rd), involved a method of stopping leaks. … (Potts v. Creager, 155 U. S. 597, 608 ; etc., etc.)

John A. Chase, Roy K. Wolke, Frank J. Pilas and Daniel K. Battstone v. Stanley J. Gartner, Roy K. Wolke, John A. Chase, and Frank J. Pilas v. Stanley J. Gartner

374 F.2d 914 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 22, 1967

Battstone, Appellants, v. Stanley J. GARTNER, Appellee. Roy K. WOLKE, John A. Chase, and Frank J. Pilas, Appellants, v. Stanley J. GARTNER, Appellee. Patent Appeals No. 7886. Patent Appeals No. 7887. … looseness to allow complete centering action by the pins and recesses. 34 The board reasoned that, under the doctrine of Field v.

Armour and Company v. Emery Industries, Inc.

433 F.2d 821 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 19, 1970

433 F.2d 821 ARMOUR AND COMPANY, Appellant, v. EMERY INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee. Patent Appeal No. 8382. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. November 19, 1970. … App., 419 F.2d 1331 (1970), cited by the appellant, we find no error in the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 156 USPQ 689 (1968). 2 Affirmed.

In re Krichbaum

39 F.2d 280 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1930

We agree with the Board of Appeals that the substitution of inflatable rubber for the paper sheets of the Small patent would not constitute invention. … We can not read this element into the claim in issue for the purpose of patentability. *982 In. the case of McCarty v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, 160 U.

United States v. Harper

2 Ct. Cust. 101 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1911

The United States argues that the decision of this court in the-case of Lai Ming v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 5 ; T. D. 30770) is decisive of the issue here, and we consider first this claim. … American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington ( 141 U. S., 468 ). The judgment of the Circuit Court for the Northern District of California is affirmed.

In re Blair

142 F.2d 289 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1944

While there may be exceptions to this rule (see Glade, Jr. v. Walgreen Co. (C. C. … Richard v. Chase Elevator Co., 159 U. S. 477 .

Steinman v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 240 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1913

See United States v. Fuld et al. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 234 ; T. D. 33476), decided by this, court concurrently herewith. … . •* The. decision of the board is therefore affirmed.

Osterman v. Salb

95 F.2d 508 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1938

Jameson v. Ellsworth, 40 App. D. C. 164. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.

Rexall Drug Company v. Manhattan Drug Company

284 F.2d 391 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 8, 1960

284 F.2d 391 REXALL DRUG COMPANY, Appellant, v. MANHATTAN DRUG COMPANY, Appellee. Patent Appeal No. 6592. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. December 8, 1960. Richard A. Mahar, Washington, D. C. … For these reasons, we reverse the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. 7 Reversed.

Application of Farah Manufacturing Company, Inc

435 F.2d 594 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 7, 1971

This is an appeal, from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board which affirmed the action of the Examiner of Trademarks in refusing to register appellant’s mark. … See: King-Kup Candies, Inc. v. King Candy Company, [48 CCPA 948, 288 F.2d 944 ] 129 USPQ 272 (CCPA, 1961).

United States v. Janson Co.

16 Ct. Cust. 315 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 19, 1928

In the case cited, the Board of General Appraisers had held these various parts to be parts of a machine and dutiable as manufactures of metal. … Dec. 706 , the Board of General Appraisers had under consideration certain loud speakers for radio receiving sets.