Case law

Miller Brewing Co. v. Oland's Breweries [1971] Ltd.

548 F.2d 349 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 23, 1976

American Lava Corp. v. … Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Sanford Chem. Co., 162 USPQ 424 (1969). .

Surgical Supply Importing Co. v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 429 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 27, 1912

It seems unnecessary to say more in the disposition of this case than that it is ruled by Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 329 ; T. D. 32055) and Khauth, Nachod & Kuhne ( 3 Ct. Cust. … Upon the authority of these two cases the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Ullman v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 61 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 28, 1910

As was intimated by the court in Kimball v. … The decision of the circuit court, which affirmed the decision of the Board of General Appraisers, is affirmed.

Steeb & Co. v. United States

15 Ct. Cust. 302 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 14, 1927

Reference may be had to the following cases: Hauptman v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 295 , T. D. 41218; Finsilver, Still & Moss v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 332 , T. D. 41250; Wolf & Co. v. … (Inc.) v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 601 , T. D. 41456.

Walsh v. Davidson

101 F.2d 224 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1939

Blodgett and Hanson v. Richter, 79 F.2d 922 , 23 C.C.P.A., Patents, 749. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In Re Russell H. McCullough

314 F.2d 570 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 14, 1963

We therefore reverse the decision of the board. 32 Reversed. Notes: 1 As we understand from the application, a long focus lens system is one that employs a lens of long focal length. … Eames v. Andrews, 122 U.S. 40 , 7 S.Ct. 1073 , 30 L.Ed. 1064 ; Robinson on Patents, § 485; In re Modine, 57 F.2d 355 , 19 CCPA 1058.

United States v. Garramone

2 Ct. Cust. 30 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 10, 1911

In the case of United States v. Nichols ( 186 U. … United States v. Nichols, supra. The result is that the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. United States

27 C.C.P.A. 232 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 4, 1940

See Magone v. Heller, 150 U. S. 70 ; Kubie & Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 468 , T. D. 40668. … —Shallus v. United States, 129 Fed. 845 ; Magone v. Heller, 150 U. S. 70 .

United States v. Bacile

4 Ct. Cust. 139 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 6, 1913

De Vries, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This appeal involves the same issue as that decided this day by the court in United States v. Palma, infra ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 140 ; T. D. 33412). … United States v. Palma, infra (T. D. 33412). For the reasons therein stated, the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

United States v. C. J. Tower & Sons

35 C.C.P.A. 19 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 20, 1947

No. “38 alundum” in lump form has been exported by the Canadian company to its parent company at Worcester, Mass., since at least 1926 and was either in brown or white color. … The Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 86 U. S. 227 ; Merritt v. Cameron, 137 U. S. 542 ; United States et al. v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 278 U. S. 269 .

Shallus v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 73 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 14, 1914

This court, in Houlder v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 247 ; T. D. 33480) and in Lauricella et al v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 253 ; T. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Yamada v. States

26 C.C.P.A. 89 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1938

The protest was for clerical error, and the board overruled the same on the ground that the excessive duties exacted were due to petitioners’ negligence or carelessness. … See United States v. Proctor Co., 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 44, T. D. 34091.

United States v. Ricard-Brewster Oil Co.

29 C.C.P.A. 192 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 5, 1942

In Spencer, Kellogg & Sons (Inc.) v. United States, supra, an oral notice was given to the inspector at the dock prior to the time the goods were taken on board the exporting vessel. … Compliance with such may be the subject of proof before the Board of General Appraisers [now the United States Customs Court].

Leo E. Jacobs v. William E. Sohl

280 F.2d 140 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 13, 1960

This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences of the United States Patent Office awarding priority in Interference No. 87,936 to William E. Sohl, the junior party. … Raymond et al. v. Wiekersham, 110 F.2d 863 , 27 CCPA 1079; Holister et al. v. Maynard, 129 F.2d 877 , 29 CCPA 1249, and cases there cited.

United States v. Vandegrift & Co.

11 Ct. Cust. 385 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 29, 1922

Appls. 419 ) and United States v. Gertzen ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 428 ). … On this testimony the board found that the rugs were not Axmin-ster rugs, although similar thereto.

United States v. Michelin Tire Co.

1 Ct. Cust. 518 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 24, 1911

In Hartranft v. Wiegmann ( 121 U. … Powers v. Barney (5 Blatch., 202); United States v. Isham ( 17 Wall., 496 -504). We are of the opinion that the decision of the Board of General Appraisers should be affirmed.

Rosenberg v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 213 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1916

In the case of United States v. Klump ( 169 U. … See also Oppenheimer v. United States ( 90 Fed., 796 ) and Wolff v. United States ( 113 Fed., 1001 ).

Dever

103 F.2d 376 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1939

Hatfield, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the' United States Patent Office affirming the decision of the Primary Examiner rejecting all of the claims … See Eibel Co. v. Paper Co., 261 U. S. 45 .

In re Bayer

35 F.2d 66 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 4, 1929

It was rejected by tlie single examiner, by the Board of Appeals, and finally by the commissioner through Acting Commissioner Kinnan. … Company, 7 Fed. 48, 50 ; In re Glafcke, 277 Fed. 603 , 605: In re McClair, 16 Fed. (2d) 351; Columbus Watch Co. v. Robbins, 64 Fed. 384 (6 C. C. A.); Frick Company v. Lindsay, 27 Fed. (2d) 59; and others.

United States v. Tower

17 C.C.P.A. 90 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 11, 1929

. *92 Ringk & Co. v. United States, 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 132 , T. D. 42769; United States v. Shade, 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 366 , T. D. 43092; Fujii Shoten v. United States, 17 C. C. P. A. 79, T. D. 43362. … The Circuit Court of the Southern District of New York reversed the decision of the board, and held the material to be properly dutiable as waste.