Case law

In re Tabb

40 F.2d 780 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1930

Corning v. Burden, 15 How. 252, 268 ; In re Weston, 17 App. D. C. 431; In re Cun ningham., 21 App. D. C. 29. … We are therefore of opinion that the decision of the Board of Appeals-should be and it is lierebj^ affirmed.

Kayser-Roth Corp. v. Silver Knit Hosiery Mills, Inc.

481 F.2d 1348 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 9, 1973

With all due respect, I do not agree with the majority opinion and would reverse the board. The majority has stressed too much the differences in sound and appearance of the marks involved here. … See In re West Point-Pepperell, Inc., 468 *1350 F.2d 200 (CCPA 1972); Paula Payne Products Co. v. Johnson Publishing Co., Inc., 473 F.2d 901 (CCPA 1973).

Lineiro v. United States

37 C.C.P.A. 10 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1949

Forrest v. United States, T. D. 47712; Pena & Flores Importing Co. v. United States, T. … United States v. Hillier’s Son Co., 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 216, 222 , T. D. 41706; United States v. Snow’s United States Sample Express Co., 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 351 , T. D. 37611; United States v. Dunhill, 13 Ct. Cust.

United States v. Vignier

3 Ct. Cust. 120 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1912

This protest was heard by the Board of General Appraisers and was sustained. … The attention of the court has been called to the case of De Bary v. Arthur ( 93 U. S., 420, 422 ).

Waltham Watch Co. v. United States

25 C.C.P.A. 330 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 7, 1938

Worthington v. Robbins, 139 U. S. 337 , 11 Sup. Ct. 581, 35 L. Ed. 181 ; Magone v. Wiederer, 159 U. S. 555 , 16 Sup. Ct. 122, 40 L. Ed. 258 . This court, in United States v. … [Italics ours.] *336 In Richard & Co. et al. v.

Application of Ferguson (Five Cases)

208 F.2d 366 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 24, 1953

See Smith v. Whitman Saddle Company, 148 U.S. 674 , 13 S.Ct. 768 , 37 L.Ed. 606 , and footnote No. 1 in the case of In re Bigelow, 194 F.2d 545 , 39 C.C.P.A., Patents, 827, 829. … See also Smith v. Whitman Saddle Company, supra; Forestek Plating & Mfg. Co. v. Knapp-Monarch Co., 6 Cir., 106 F.2d 554 .

East Asiatic Co. v. United States

27 C.C.P.A. 364 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 20, 1940

D. 42052; United States v. Estate of Boshell, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 273 , T. D. 41884; and May Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 266 , T. D. 40270. … Importer’s protest was overruled by the Board of General Appraisers and this court affirmed its judgment.

Application of Erich Timmerbeil, Hugo Timmerbell and Paul Timmerbeil

320 F.2d 413 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 26, 1963

Justice Goldberg in Foman v. … Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48 [ 78 S.Ct. 99 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 ]. The Rules themselves provide that they are to be construed `to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.' Rule 1."

In re Vincent

40 F.2d 573 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1930

Co. v. Landers, et als., 258 Fed. 28 ; Western Well Works v. Layne & Bowler, 276 Fed. 465 ; In re Molyneanx, 17 C. C. P. A. 573, 35 F. (2d) 68. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. American Railway Express Co.

17 C.C.P.A. 10 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 2, 1929

A ruling case, in our opinion, is Van Doorn v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 167 , T. D. 40063. … It is said that some of these exhibits, notably illustrative Exhibit No. 6, Hotels and Boarding Houses, is nothing but a compilation, and is not the work of an author.

Downing & Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 451 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 3, 1925

D. 38550); Hartranft v. Wiegmann ( 121 U. S. 609, 616 ); Eidman v. Martinez ( 184 U. S. 578, 583 ). … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore reversed.

United States v. Hagemann

39 C.C.P.A. 182 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 18, 1952

The case of Tower & Sons v. United States, 67 Treas. Dec. 1358 , R. … Counsel for the Government also cite the case of Maier, Morton & Browne v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 115 , T. D. 38753.

Cablat v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 304 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 9, 1922

.— United States v. Tiffany & Co. ( 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 247, 251 ; T. D. 38576). … Accordingly the decision of the board overruling the protest is affirmed.

McKesson & Robbins (Inc.) v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 481 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 30, 1923

In the case of United States v. Lippman et al. ( 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 336 ; T. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

United States v. Monroe-Goldkamp Co.

15 Ct. Cust. 26 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1927

In the case of United States v. … The judgment of the Board of United States General Appraisers (now United States Customs Court) sustaining the protest is affirmed.

United States v. Vandegrift & Co.

11 Ct. Cust. 333 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1922

The Board qf General Appraisers sustained the protest and the Government appealed. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore affirmed.

Proctor & Gamble Co. v. J. L. Prescott Co.

49 F.2d 959 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1931

container, says that there are 999 uses for “Oxol” in every home, and that among such usas are those of bleaching clothes, removing stains, and cleaning household articles (such as bathtubs, sinks, wash-basins, linoleum, drain boards … Co. v. Riodela Chemical Co., 41 F. (2d) 408, 411, 17 C. C. P. A. 1272, in which ease the facts were quite similar to those at bar.

Application of Carl B. Betz

418 F.2d 942 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1969

This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 1, 9 and 19-26 in appellant’s application for “Electrostatic Printing.” 1 No claim has been allowed. … Fig. 3 of the Childress drawings shows that the image passes directly from a vacuum to a higher pressure as it enters the V-shaped area.

United States v. Import Toy & Specialties Co.

13 Ct. Cust. 230 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1925

In the case of United States v. Kelley Hardware Co., 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 204 , T. … In the case of Cruger’s (Inc.) v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls 516, T.

Clinton Smullyan Associates v. United States

35 C.C.P.A. 7 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 20, 1947

Bernstein v. United States, 18 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 193, T. D. 44379; Basser’s Silk Co. v. United States, 23 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 141, T. D. 48008; Nippon Dry Goods Co. v. United States, 27 C. C. P. A. … As early as 1908, in the case of Fritzsche Brothers v. United States, T. D. 29359, 16 Treas.