Case law

Watson v. York Metal & Alloys Co.

14 Ct. Cust. 449 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1927

In so Testifying, in my judgment, they were giving their opinions of what amounts to a question of law and which was erroneously decided by the board and by this court. … United States v. Downing & Co. (Inc.), 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 194 , T. D. 41702. It should be classified as dutiable under paragraph 302. .

United States v. F. W. Woolworth Co.

23 C.C.P.A. 234 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 16, 1936

Vide United States v. Frankel Importing Co., 18 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 188, T. D. 44378. … Kress & Co. v. United States, 22 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 421, T.

United States v. Nelson Bead Co.

42 C.C.P.A. 175 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 28, 1955

I feel that the decision in this case should be controlled by the reasoning set forth in United States v. Hermann, 91 F. 116 (C. C. A. 2nd 1898) since it is very similar to the present case. … Tbe court’s reasoning in the Hermann case is quoted below: * * * it was quite competent for the board to conclude that what was called “commissions”, was merely an arbitrary item, which, really represented a part of the market

Downing & Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 278 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1911

The Board of General Appraisers was apparently- of the opinion that the objection of the importers was well taken; but, considering that it was bound by the decision in United States v. Leeming (153 Fed. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

United States v. Chili Products Corp.

23 C.C.P.A. 209 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 25, 1935

It is contended by counsel for appellant that the imported merchandise is a spice, and dutiable as such under paragraph 781, supra, and that the United States Customs Court so held in the case of Cacciola Bros. v. … See Togasaki & Co. et al. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 463, 465 , T. D. 40667.

Application of Emil H. Blattner

245 F.2d 491 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 17, 1957

In the recent case of Blanchard v. … In sustaining the decision of the Board of Appeals holding the generic claims barred by double patenting, the court quoted with approval the following from Morsa *494 Chain Co. v.

In re Symonds

47 F.2d 972 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 31, 1931

Smith & Company v. … In Kurtz et at. v.

In re HOWARTH

654 F.2d 103 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 16, 1981

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals (board) sustaining the rejection of all claims of appellant’s application Serial No. 620,564, filed October 8, 1975, under 35 U.S.C. § 112 … As was said in Webster Loom Co. v.

United States v. Spanish River Pulp & Paper Mills (Ltd.)

5 Ct. Cust. 235 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 28, 1914

At the hearing before the board Mr. … In the case of Cliff Paper Co. v.

Application of Herbert Muth

373 F.2d 744 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1967

In affirming the examiner, the board adopted his position as its own. … See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 , 86 S.Ct. 684 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 .

Raybestos Manhattan, Inc. v. United States

27 C.C.P.A. 340 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 4, 1940

In the case of Davies v. Arthur, 96 U. … Burgess v. Converse, 2 Curt. 223 . In the case of Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.

Kiekhaefer Corporation v. Willys-Overland Motors, Inc., (Willys Motors, Inc., Assignee, Substituted), Willys-Overland Motors, Inc., (Willys Motors, Inc., Assignee, Substituted) v. Kiekhaefer Corporation

236 F.2d 423 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 27, 1956

Browne, Mead, Browne, Schuyler & Beveridge, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Kiekhaefer Corp. Carl F. Schaffer, Toledo, Ohio, for Willys-Overland Motors, Inc., etc. … For example, in Richard Hellmann, Inc., v.

Norman G. Jensen, Inc. v. United States

634 F.2d 1345 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 6, 1980

Jensen, Inc., a/c Calhoun’s Collectors Society, Inc. v. United States, 84 Cust. Ct. 76 , C.D. 4846 (1980), sustaining the original classification of the imported merchandise, 23 carat (K) gold stamps. We affirm. … While on board, the tourists may buy Staffa stamps for 6 pounds sterling.

United States v. Kurtz

21 C.C.P.A. 12 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 12, 1933

Dec. 77 ; Altman & Co. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 102 , T. D. 38749; In re Smith, 108 Fed. 800 ; Smith v. Read, 111 Fed. 795 ; Mills & Gibbs v. United States, G. A. 5291, T. D. 24263, 6 Treas. Dec. 190 . … Therefore, and properly so, we think, the board held the goods were-not properly classifiable as made on the Notingham lace-curtain machine. In Altman & Co. v.

United States v. Wakem

14 Ct. Cust. 161 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1926

From this judgment, importer applied for a review by the Board of General Appraisers. … Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 17 , T. D. 40861; Sandoz Chemical Works v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 466 , T. D. 41366; Metz & Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 412 , T.

Pacific Trading Co. v. United States

19 C.C.P.A. 361 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 29, 1932

In Salomon & Co. v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 5 , T. … See United States v. Zucca & Co., supra.

Walgreen v. Greenwald Hosiery Co.

139 F.2d 713 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 8, 1943

The Examiner of Interferences (citing the cases of American Steel Foundries v. Robertson, 269 U. S. 372 , and Tinker v. M. F. Patterson Dental Supply Co., 53 App. D. … C. 507, 509; Baekeland v. Van Exem., 146 M. D. 403, Mar. 14, 1925, 15 T.-M. Rep. 176; Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U. S. 540, 548 ; Danco v.

Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 479 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1912

The protest was duly heard by the Board of General Appraisers and was overruled. The appellants now pray for a reversal of that decision. … The case of Oppenheimer v. United States (71 Fed. Rep., 869) is cited as an authority much in point.

Application of Julius Diamond and Milton Kellman

360 F.2d 214 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 12, 1966

In re Widmer, supra; Deutsche Gold-Und Silber-Scheideanstalt Vormals Roessler *220 V. Com’r of Pats., 251 F.Supp. 624 , (D.C. D.C.1966). … The board affirmed the rejection for its own reasons “and those set forth in the Examiner’s Answer * * *.”

United States v. Garlock Packing Co.

32 C.C.P.A. 79 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 30, 1944

Under similar circumstances, our appellate court, in the Snow case, supra, stated as follows: In Hall v. United States (T. D. 25340) a decision of the Board of General Appraisers was affirmed. … In the decision of the board by De Vries, G.