Case law

The United States v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc.

440 F.2d 1384 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 13, 1971

The United States appeals from the decision and judgment of the First Division of the Customs Court in Topps Chewing Gum, Inc. v. … After noting that prior to the enactment of the TSUS a “toy” was defined as a child’s plaything, the court cited Wilson’s Customs Clearance, Inc. v.

In re Stark

453 F.2d 1401 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 27, 1972

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 14-18 of appellant’s *788 application serial No. 570,382, filed August 4,1966, 1 for a “Television Degaussing … See Switzer v. Sockman, 52 CCPA 759, 765-69, 333 F. 2d 935, 940-43 , 142 USPQ 226 , 230-32 (1964). The decision is reversed. Designated a continuation of abandoned application serial No. 331,669, filed December 19,1963.

In re Thacker

154 F.2d 156 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1946

Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 26 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 937, 102 F. (2d) 212, 40 USPQ 665 . The general principle of inherency therein set forth was, followed by us in the case of In re Salomon, 30 C. C. P. A. … For the reasons hereinbefore stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed. BlaNd, Judge, dissents.

United States v. Barker Bros.

17 C.C.P.A. 6 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 2, 1929

United States v. Hiller’s & Son Co., 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 103 , T. D. 42762; United States v. Sandoz Chemical Works, 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 392 , T. D. 43119; United States v. Fenton Co., 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 418 , T. … United States v. Doragon, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 182 , T. D. 41051; American Bead Co. v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 161 , T. D. 36465; United States v. Mandel Bros., 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 44 , T.

Armour & Co. v. Emery Industries, Inc.

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

PER CURIAM: On consideration of the transcript of record, the briefs, the arguments on appeal, and our recent decision in Technic, Inc. v. … . & Pat.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). Affirmed.

United States v. Nozaki Bros.

5 Ct. Cust. 286 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1914

D. 33485); in United States v. Proctor Co., and Hampton, jr., & Co. v. … . *288 In United States v.

Matter of the Application of Jacob J. Jaeger and John M. Rusnak

241 F.2d 723 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1957

Since there is no doubt in our minds on the question of patentability, we need not discuss this point beyond observing that we see no parallel here to the situation which existed in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. … For the foregoing reasons we see no error in the decision of the board and it is affirmed. Affirmed. JACKSON, J., retired, recalled to participate in place of COLE, J.

Hensel v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 388 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1917

De Vries, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The merchandise and the material issues presented herein are the same as presented in Bahnsen & Co. v. United States and United States v. Bahnsen & Co. ( 7 Ct. Cust. … Upon the authority of and for the reasons therein stated the decision of the Board of General Appraisers herein is reversed.

Minorsky v. Thilo

68 F.2d 452 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 27, 1933

In support of the first contention Minorsky cites Parker v. Appert, 8 App. D. C., 270; Pope and Mims v. McLean, 1903 C. D. 186; and Bliss v. Creveling, 1904 C. … Turnbull v. Curtis, 1906 C. D. 67; Dyson v. Automatic Electric Co., 281 Fed. 586 ; Kinsman v. Kintner, 1908 C.

Continental Distilling Corporation v. Norman Williams Co., Assignee of E. Martinoni Company

443 F.2d 392 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 17, 1971

Smith Bowman Distillery, Inc. v. Schenley Distillers, Inc., 198 F.Supp. 822 (D.Del.1961). We are not convinced. The factual situation in the Bowman case is distinguishable from the present case. … For the reasons stated above, the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 . Abstracted at 157 USPQ 715 (1968). 2 . E. Martinoni Company. 3 .

United States v. Sheldon & Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 421 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 18, 1914

See Fischer v. United States (5 Ct. Cust. Appls,, 301; T. D. 34477). The cases cited by the general appraiser in sustaining the protest ■ do not go to the length of supporting the conclusion which was reached. … The decision of the board is reversed.

Ascher Co. v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 327 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1912

Hoeninghaus v. United States ( 172 U. S., 622 ); Saxonville Mills v. Russell ( 116 U. S., 13, 18, 20, 21 ). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Transatlantic Shipping Co. v. United States

28 C.C.P.A. 19 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1940

United States v. Semon Bache & Co., 25 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 387, T. D. 49466. … United States v. International Forwarding Co., 27 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 21, C. A. D. 56; United States v. H. W. Robinson & Co., 25 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 395, T. D. 49484; Lovell Dressel Co., Inc., v.

Vandegrift v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 230 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1924

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

United States v. Tadross & Co.

14 Ct. Cust. 10 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1926

Johnson Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 373 , T. D. 41318. … Johnson Co. v. United States, supra; Metz & Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 412 , T. D. 41340.

United States v. Jules Raunheim Inc.

17 C.C.P.A. 425 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1930

In United States v. … Frankenberg v. United States, supra; United States v. Citroen, supra.

United States v. Dessin

13 Ct. Cust. 28 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 20, 1925

The Board of General Appraisers so held. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

United States v. Hammond

15 Ct. Cust. 386 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1928

In United States v. Aki, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 415 , 46 Treas. Dec. 583 , T. … As Justice Brown points out in the decision of the court below, the testimony shows that skinned and boned fish which has not been dried is imported in large quantities into this country in the form of fresh fillets of haddock

Atlas Marine Supply Co. v. United States

29 C.C.P.A. 20 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1941

Barham Co. v. United States, T. D. 48761, 71 Treas. … D. 22433; United States v. One *26 Hempen Cable, 27 Fed. Cas. 264, 265 ; United States v. 24 Coils of Cordage, 28 Fed. Cas. 276 -278; United States v. 23 Coils of Cordage, 28 Fed. Cas. 290 -292.

S. J. Stile Associates Ltd. v. Snyder

646 F.2d 522 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 2, 1981

A-Copy, Inc. v. Michaelson, 599 F. 2d 450, 452 (CA 1 1978). One denied a preliminary injunction must meet the heavy burden of establishing an abuse of the *30 trial court’s discretion of a clear error of law. Brown v. … FTC v. Cement Institute, 333 U.S. 683, 726 (1948); Jacob Siegel Co. v. FTC, 327 U.S. 608, 611-613 (1946); City of Grand Rapids v. Richardson, 429 F. Supp. 1087 (W.D.