Case law

United States v. McCullough Seed Co.

13 Ct. Cust. 237 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1925

On identification by the deputy collector at this board, the Government admits that the initials attached to the book just offered in evidence are Mr. … United States v. De Villamil, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 255 , T. D. 40267. We are of the opinion that the merchandise was imported under the tariff act of 1913, and the judgment is acordingly affirmed.

Erie Technological Products, Inc. v. United States

462 F.2d 564 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 13, 1972

Dec. 705 , T.D. 27363 (1906), in which the Board of General Appraisers held platinum black to be free of duty ns unmanufactured platinum. … It is not clear what was established by the evidence before the Board of General Appraisers in that case. At any rate, we cannot ignore the word “primary” in the present statutory definition.

Tilge v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 462 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1911

We held in that case that these packages must be examined by the appraiser and board of general appraisers in order that a valid appraisement may obtain. … American Sugar Refining Co. v. United States, supra, p. 228 (T. D. 31273); United States v. Lueder (154 Fed. Rep., 1).

United States v. Klytia Corp.

121 F.2d 473 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 30, 1940

In the case of Tripp v. Santa Rosa Street Railroad Company, 144 U. … Tripp v. Santa Rosa Street Railroad Company, supra.

Stationery Import & Export Corp. v. United States

23 C.C.P.A. 229 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 16, 1935

The unctuous material forms a lead of considerable width in comparison with its covering of cedar wood, and the pencils thus used are of two colors, black and brown. … In Factor v.

United States v. Mussman & Shafer, Inc.

40 C.C.P.A. 108 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 14, 1953

See Washington *113 Stale Liquor Control Board v. United States, 20 Cust. Ct. 173 , C. D. 1104. … Goffigon v. United States, 24 Cust. Ct. 81 , C. D. 1212; International Paper Co. v. United States, 24 Cust. Ct. 95 , C. D. 1215; Washington State Liquor Control Board v. United States, supra, F. B. Wilcon v.

Weiner King, Inc. v. Wiener King Corp.

615 F.2d 512 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 7, 1980

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), Weiner King, Inc. v. … Thompson Co. v.

M. Martinez & Co. v. United States

24 C.C.P.A. 285 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1936

In our decision it was recited that the United States Board of General Appraisers (now the United States Customs Court) on *293 November 27, 1922, decided the case of Gerrard Wire Tying Machines Co. v. United States, T. … In the petition for rehearing appellants urge, in effect, that the foregoing is in contravention of our declaration in the case of United Stales v. Bassichis Co. et al., 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 410 , T.

Mercoid Corporation v. Airborne Instruments Laboratory, Inc. (Cutler-Hammer, Inc., Assignee, Substituted)

287 F.2d 189 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1961

Sealy, Inc. v. Simmons Co., 265 F.2d 934 , 46 CCPA 857, 862. … We therefore affirm the decision of the-Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Affirmed. 1 . Serial No. 14, 040 filed August 16, 1956. 2 .

In re Ewald

108 F.2d 250 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 26, 1939

See Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co., 170 U. S. 537 ; Interstate Folding Box Co. v. Empire Box Corp., 68 Fed. (2d) 500; and Topheim Oil Tank & Pump Co. v. Dean et al., 73 Fed. (2d) 32. … S. 1 ; Eibel Co. v. Paper Co., 261 U. S. 45 ; Morley Sewing Machine Co. v. Lancaster, 129 U. S. 263 ; Continental Paper Bag Company v. Eastern Paper Bag Company, 210 U. S. 405 ; Oilgear Co. v. J. N.

Richardson Co. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 179 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1917

In Knox v. … I would sustain the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers.

Barry & Staines Linoleum, Inc. v. United States

24 C.C.P.A. 383 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 25, 1937

In the case of United States v. Field & Co., 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 376 , T. … Lloyd Co. v. United States, T. D. 43495, 56 Treas.

Lever Bros. v. Nobio Products, Inc.

103 F.2d 917 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1939

John Wood Manufacturing Co. v. Servel, Inc., 77 F.2d 946 , 22 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1370, and cases cited. In the case of Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. … Inc. v. Adah Mae Dare, 70 F.2d 118 , 21 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1086.

F. W. Myers & Co. v. United States

44 C.C.P.A. 195 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1957

The record indicates that the invoice for the imported merchandise included in the price the import tax of $1.50 per thousand board feet. … Finsilver, Still & Moss v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 332, 335 , T. D. 41250; R. W. Gresham v. United States, 27 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 106, 112, C. A. D. 70; United States v. W. J. Westerfield, 40 C. C. P. A.

Lee v. United States

20 C.C.P.A. 192 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 31, 1932

United States v. Dudley, 174 U. S. 670 . * * * *197 In tbe case of Smillie & Co. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 199 , T. … D. 44893; Pacific Iron & Metal Co. v. United States, 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 433 , T. D. 42605; United States v. Stone & Downer, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 293 , T. D. 40296; Ishimitsu v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust.

United States v. W. X. Huber Co.

20 C.C.P.A. 9 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 2, 1932

encaustic, ceramic mosaic, flint, spar, embossed, gold decorated, grooved or corrugated, and all other earthenware tiles and tiling by whatever name known, except pill tiles and so-called quarries or quarry tiles, red or brown … In Shannon & Sons v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 13 , T. D. 38635, we had under consideration paragraph 72 of the Tariff Act of October 3, 1913.

United States v. Maier

18 C.C.P.A. 409 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 2, 1931

Whitbeck v. Montana Central Railway Co., 21 Mont. 102 , 52 P. 1098 ; Dedrick v. Charrier, 15 N. D. 515 , 108 N. W. 38 ; Martinson v. Marzolj, 14 N. D. 301 , 103 N. W. 937 ; State v. … Steiner, 58 Wash. 578 , 109 P. 57 ; Jacks v. Baldez, 97 Cal. 91 , 31 P. 899 ; People v. Wells, 255 Ill. 450 , 99 N. E. 606 ; State v. District Court, 55 Mont. 324 , 176 P. 608 ; Weaver v. Weaver, 16 N.

Bangor & Aroostook Railroad v. United States

20 C.C.P.A. 96 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1932

On the authority of the decisions of this court in the cases of United States v. Swift & Co., supra, and Pacific Guano & Fertilizer Co. v. United States, 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 218 , T. … *100 However, that pronouncement has been modified by the decisions of this court in United States v. Swift & Co., supra; Pacific Guano & Fertilizer Co. v. United States, supra; Wilbur-Ellis Co. et al. v.

Duro Pump & Mfg. Co. v. Thomas Maddock's Sons Co.

36 F.2d 1005 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 27, 1930

Co. v. California Cedar Products Co., 11 F. (2d) 205, 56 App. D. C. 156; Duro Co. v. Duro Co., 177 M. Rep. 420. In the case of Duro Pump Mfg. Co. v. … Co. v. California Cedar Products Co., and the case of Duro Co. v. Duro Co., supra, relied upon by appellant.

McNally v. Mossinghoff

673 F.2d 1253 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 11, 1982

This court sustained the Board of Appeals’ affirmance of the examiner’s rejection of all claims in that application in a decision and unpublished opinion dated March 24, 1977. … Margolis v. Banner, 599 F.2d 435 , 202 USPQ 365 (Cust & Pat. App.1979); Commissariat A L’Energie Atomique v.