Case law

United States v. Crosse

22 C.C.P.A. 214 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1934

United States v. Acker, Merrill et al., 171 Fed. 77 , T.D. 29925. … This classification was sustained by the Board. The particular claim of the importer is not stated.

In re Daniels

177 F.2d 283 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 30, 1949

As illustrative of the respective groups we follow the example set by the board and quote Nos. 10 and 17: 10. … When air is present, the hot resin is oxidized at the surface, forming a brown film which does not melt and is not affected by organic solvents.

Snow v. United States

24 C.C.P.A. 319 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 21, 1936

As was said by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. United States, 289 U. … Co. v. Greene, 244 U.

Borm v. Champayne

102 F.2d 862 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1939

Peters v. Hopkins, 34 App. D. C. 141; Orvis F. Rowe v. Frederick C. Holtz, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 964, 55 F. (2d) 465; Garand v. Pedersen, 22 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1161, 76 F. (2d) 407. … Townsend v. Henry L. Smith, supra; Sarah E. Nolop v. Samuel Herbert Smith, supra; Fenton R. Brydle v. Harry H.

The United States (Index Industrial Corp., Party in Interest) v. National Starch Products, Inc.

318 F.2d 737 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 12, 1962

United States v. H. V. Albrecht, etc., 27 CCPA 112, 117, C.A.D. 71; W. T. Grant Co. v. United States, 38 CCPA 57, 65, C.A.D. 440; United States v. … See also Strakosh v. United States, 1 CCPA 360, T.D. 31453, United States v. Danker & Marston, 2 CCPA 462, T.D. 32208, Tiffany v. United States, 2 Cir., 105 F. 766 , and the charge to the jury in Fisk et al. v.

Johnson Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 373 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 18, 1926

United States v. Goodwin, 11 U. S. 107 ; Dower v. Richards, 151 U. S. 658 ; Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, 174 U. S. 1 (37); Elliott v. Toeppner, 187 U. S. 327 (334); Behn v. Campbell, 205 U. S. 403 ; Cincinnati v. … Co. v. Bunn, 168 Fed. 862 ; Skolnik v. United States, 4 Fed. (2d) 797.

In re Watson

517 F.2d 465 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 5, 1975

The board’s opinion does not mention the rejection based on the first paragraph of § 112. Since the board did not reverse this rejection made by the examiner, the board is deemed to have affirmed the rejection. … The board affirmed the examiner.

United States v. Bracher

13 Ct. Cust. 432 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 18, 1926

Any defects of form in the petitions under these circumstances, in our judgment, would not invalidate the judgment of the board. Meyer & Lange et al. v. United States, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 422 ; Stockton et al. v. … Mutual Building, etc. v. Bossieux , Fed. Cas. No. 9977; vol. 17; Wallace v. Clark, Fed. Cas. No. 17098, vol. 29; Russell v. McLellan, Fed. Cas.

Dutton v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 460 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1915

The protest was overruled by the Board of General Appraisers, and the importers now appeal. The following is a copy of the two paragraphs which thus stand in competition in this case: 329. … The decision of the board is therefore affirmed.

Oelrichs & Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 355 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1911

See also Beer v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 484 ; T. D. 31526). … It is not the province of the classification board to retry the question of fact determined by the board of reappraisement. This was held by this court in Wolff v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 181 ; T.

Wolfgang B. Klemperer v. Nathan C. Price

271 F.2d 743 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 2, 1959

Braren v. Horner, 49 F.2d 984 , 18 CCPA 1408; Fageol v. Midboe, 56 F.2d 867 , 19 CCPA 1117; Chittick v. Lyons, 104 F.2d 818 , 26 CCPA 1382; Driggs v. Clark, 140 F.2d 994 , 31 CCPA 856; Draeger v. … Bradley, 156 F.2d 64 , 33 CCPA 1130, 1136; Botnen v. Dorman, 179 F.2d 249 , 37 CCPA 813; St. Pierre v. Harvey, 233 F.2d 337 , 43 CCPA 918. The case of Field v.

Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co.

670 F.2d 1024 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 18, 1982

cases, this court criticized the practice of the board in not deciding all issues within the inter partes proceeding. 8 Nevertheless, the practice of the board continued until its decision in Norac Co. v. … Lefkowitz, Recent Changes in Practice Before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 69 Trademark Rep. 479 (1979). . See Roux Laboratories, Inc. v.

Briggs v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 408 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 3, 1911

Hilton v. Merritt ( 110 U. S., 97, 107 ); Auffmordt v. Hedden ( 137 U. S., 310, 325 ). … United States v. Passavant ( 169 U. S., 16, 19 ); United States v. Klingenberg ( 153 U. S., 93, 101, 104 ); Badger v. Cusimano ( 130 U. S., 39, 43 ); Hilton v. Merritt ( 110 U. S., 97, 106 ); Robertson v. Frank ( 132 U.

Williams v. Five Platters, Inc.

510 F.2d 963 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 20, 1975

Smith v. Stone, 308 F.2d 15 (9th Cir. 1962). … V. v. Jay Emm, Inc., 301 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1962). We hold that it did not. Its decision is therefore affirmed. Affirmed. . Opposition No. 52,746. .

Ross & Co. v. United States

9 Ct. Cust. 235 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 25, 1919

This view of the appraiser was fully corroborated at the trial before-the board. Mr. W. F. … Brown v. Piper ( 91 U. S., 37, 42 ); Jones v. United States ( 137 U. S., 202, 216 ); Nelson v. Cushing ( 2 Cush., 519 , 532, 533); Page v. Fawcet (1 Leon., 242); Taylor on Evidence (8th ed., secs. 16, 21).

United States v. Emery

53 C.C.P.A. 1 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 13, 1966

The cases are: Hartranft v. Langfeld, 125 U.S. 128 (1888); Robertson v. Edelhoff, 132 U.S. 614 (1890); Cadwalader v. Wanamaker, 149 U.S. 532 (1893); Hartranft v. Meyer, 149 U.S. 544 (1893): and Walker v. … These cases are: Chrystal v. United States, 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 489 , T.D. 35148; United States v. Boker & Co., 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 243 , T.D. 35472; Brown & Co. v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust.

Vita Food Products, Inc. v. United States

24 C.C.P.A. 248 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1936

As authorities for the foregoing, this court cited the cases of Bogle v. Magone, 152 U. S. 623 ; Vitelli & Son v. United States, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 75 , T. D. 33313, and Stein, Hirsch & Co. v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. … Brown & Co. et al. v. United States, T. D. 40726, 47 Treas.

United States v. Kurtz, Stuböeck & Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 144 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 5, 1914

Sec. 14, act of 1909; McGoon v. Scales ( 9 Wall., 23, 30 ). … Brignardello ( 1 Wall., 627, 634 ); Voorhees v. United States Bank ( 10 Pet., 449 , 473). The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In re Nantucket Inc.

677 F.2d 95 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 6, 1982

In World Carpets, Inc. v. … In National Lead Co. v.

Salomon v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 92 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1911

Two cases were subsequently decided by the Board of General Appraisers prior to the enactment of the statute of 1909. In Doggett v. United States (T. … See Shallus v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 556 ; T. D. 31552) and cases cited; United States v. Myers ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 257 ; T. D. 31301); Komada v. United States ( 215 U. S., 392 ).