Case law

Canadian Tarpoly Co. v. U.S. International Trade Commission

640 F.2d 1322 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 5, 1981

Like any other administrative agency or board, it is entirely the creature of statute. Civil Aeronautics Board v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 367 U.S. 316 (1961); *129 Soriano v. United States, 494 F. 2d 681 (CA 9 1974). … As Chief Justice Warren succinctly stated in Civil Aeronautics Board, supra, at 322, “[T]he determinative question is not what the Board thinks it should do, but what Congress has said it can do.”

Omega Louis Brandt & Frere, S. A. v. Simon Golub & Sons, Inc.

292 F.2d 304 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 24, 1961

Appellant opposes registration of the mark “Omichron” by appellee. 1 From a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing the opposition ( 125 USPQ 351 ) appellant appeals. Appellant’s mark is “Omega.” … United States Time Corp. v. Tennenbaum (Tennenbaum & Co., Telix Watch, assignee, substituted), 267 F.2d 327 , 46 CCPA 895. 1 . Serial No. 39,058 filed Oct. 17, 1957. 2 . Reg.

Central Warehouse Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 219 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 13, 1922

De Vries, Presiding Judge, delivered the opinion of the Court; The subject of decision herein is the same as that in Woolworth Co. v. United States ( 11 Ct. Cust. Appls., 217 ; T. D. 38985), decided *220 herewith. … Thé case was submitted upon this and the record therein-For the reasons therein set forth the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Esso Standard Oil Company v. Bigelow-Clark, Inc.

266 F.2d 804 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 28, 1959

Browne, Washington, D. C. (Thomas L. Mead, Jr., Andrew B. Beveridge, and Mead, Browne, Schuyler & Beveridge, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant. James W. Fitzsimmons, East Rockaway, N. Y. (Robert C. … May Department Stores Co. v. Kenya Corp., 234 F.2d 870 , 43 CCPA 940; May Department Stores v. Schloss Bros. & Co., Inc., 234 F.2d 879 , 43 CCPA 980; and cases there cited. Further, in General Shoe Corporation v.

Shallus Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 220 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 13, 1922

De Vries, Presiding Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The subject of decision herein is the same as that in Woolworth Co. v. United States ( 11 Ct. Cust. Appls., 217 ; T. D. 38985), decided herewith. … For the reasons therein set forth the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Curtis v. Land

129 F.2d 549 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1942

See King v. Burner, 24 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1312, 90 F. (2d) 343; Raiche v. Foley, 27 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1380, 113 F. (2d) 497. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Wittry

489 F.2d 1299 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 10, 1974

This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-28, all the remaining claims in appellant’s application serial No. 862,985, filed August 19, 1969 for reissue of … Duncumb and V. E. Cosslett, from X-Kay Microscopy and Micro-radiography, edited by V. E. Cosslett et al., Academic Press, Inc., New York, 1957, pp. 374-380. .

Fougera & Co. v. United States

9 Ct. Cust. 296 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 30, 1919

The importer protests on the ground that there was manifest clerical error, and he also makes the claim that the case should be treated as analagous to that of Downing v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 278 ; T. … The decision of the board is affirmed.

United States v. Powers

16 Ct. Cust. 185 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1928

We quote from Exhibit No. 2, an affidavit of Antoine Dalle, president of the board of directors of the concern which manufactured and shipped the merchandise in question: From May, 1924, until the end of September, 1925, … See Keve & Young v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 94 , T. D. 38747, and cases cited therein; also United States v. Proctor & Co., Hammacher-Schlemmer & Co., 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. — , T. D. 42564.

In re Fawick

56 F.2d 873 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 6, 1932

This ground of rejection was also approved by the Board of Appeals. … The question of the effect of an introductory phrase was fully considered by this court in the case of Barren v. Horner, 18 C. C. P. A.

United States v. Frederick Pustet Co.

17 C.C.P.A. 221 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 28, 1929

Bradford v. American Lithographic Co., 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 318, 323 ; United States v. Martorelli, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 327, 331 . … Evidence was introduced before the Board of General Appraisers on the issue whether the goods were capable of being marked, and upon wjtdch the board held that the importer had not proved the rolls could not be marked.

Matter of the Application of Irving Rossi

241 F.2d 726 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1957

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the rejection by the primary examiner of the two remaining claims of appellant’s application No. 214,467 for a patent … Abbott v. Coe, 71 App.D.C. 195 , 109 F.2d 449 ; In re Dalzell, 166 F.2d 843 , 35 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1024; In re Pollack, 175 F.2d 587 , 36 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1156.

United States v. Rietmann Pilcer Co.

21 C.C.P.A. 413 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 29, 1934

The case of Tyler Co. v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 158 , T.D. 35433, is relied upon by the importer and is quoted from at some length. … In Eckstein & Co. v. United States, T.D. 31968, 21 Treas.

United States v. Boker

6 Ct. Cust. 243 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1915

Magone v. Wiederer ( 159 U. S., 555 ); Magone v. Heller ( 150 U. S., 70 ); Cadwalader v. Wanamaker ( 149 U. S., 532 ); Walker v. Seeberger ( 149 U. S., 541 ); Chew Hing Lung v. Wise ( 176 U. S., 156 ); Meyer v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Spalding v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 356 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 28, 1912

In United States v. White ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 80 ; T. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Sal Iannelli, Incorporated v. Morris Wasser

411 F.2d 1350 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 10, 1969

This is an appeal by opposer, Sal Iannelli, Incorporated, from the decision 1 of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dated October 4, 1966, dismissing Opposition No. 44,440 to the registration of ANALITE as a trademark for … See Wilson Jones Company v. Wildman Jacquard Co., 142 USPQ 287 (TTAB1964). In Texas Instruments, Inc. v.

Armour & Co. v. Emery Industries, Inc.

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

PEE CUEIAM: On consideration of the transcript of record, the briefs, the arguments on appeal, and our recent decision in Technic, Inc. v. … Sel-Rex Corporation, 57 CCPA 873, 419 F. 2d 1331 , 164 USPQ 342 (1970), cited by the appellant, we find no error in the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 156 USPQ 689 (1968).

United States v. Gallagher & Ascher

16 Ct. Cust. 141 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1928

The case, we believe, is settled by our judgment in Stein, Kirsch & Co. v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 154 , T. D. 35397. … It is argued that the recent case of United States v. Kawahara, 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 231 , T. D. 42242, is a departure from the doctrine announced in the Stein case, supra.

Rogers v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 51 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1926

The case of United States v. Buss, 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 110 , T. D. 34138, is cited by counsel for appellant as authority for this contention. … In Snow’s United States Sample Express Co. v. United States, 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 17 , T.

Morris Rosenbloom & Co. v. United States

17 C.C.P.A. 45 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 2, 1929

United States v. American Metal Co., 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 440 . In Linen Thread Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 301 , T. … In Schrikker v.