Case law

Clarke v. United States

17 C.C.P.A. 420 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1930

Among them are Cramer v. Arthur, 102 U. S. 612 ; Hadden v. Merritt, 115 U. S. 25 ; United States v. Klingenberg, 153 U. S. 98, 99 ; United States v. Newhall & Co., (C. C.) 91 Fed. 525 ; United States v. … Lucius Beebe & Sons, 122 Fed. 762 ; United States v. Whitridge, 197 U. S. 135 ; and In Re Parkhurst, first presented to the Board of General Appraisers (now the U. S. Customs Court) T. D. 39977, G.

Richard Shipping Corp. v. United States

17 C.C.P.A. 417 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1930

D. 41956, and Thompson-Starrett Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 37 , T. D. 39979. … With reference to the decisions of this court in Thompson-Starrett Co. v. United States, and United States v.

Application of Karl Hermann Hacklander

328 F.2d 937 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 12, 1964

textile fabric i. e. pentagon shaped, square, etc. or the free stretch of the fabric. * * * ” Appellant argues that rubber and polyurethane foam are not equivalents, and cites as authority for this proposition Carborundum Co. v. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 . Serial No. 595,552, filed July 2, 1956, for “Expanded Plastic.”

L. Oppleman, Inc. v. United States

27 C.C.P.A. 227 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 4, 1940

Mead Cycle Co. et al. v. United States, T. D. 35223, G. A. 7700, 28 Treas. Dec. 389 . … Whitacre, Inc. v. United States, 22 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 623, T. D. 47615. This legal principle obviously was recognized by counsel for the parties in the instant case.

Magee v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 443 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 11, 1913

Cadwalader v. Jessup & Moore Paper Co. ( 149 U. S., 350 ). … We think, for the reasons stated, that the merchandise is entitled to free entry, and the decision of the board is reversed.

Levi v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 447 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1917

D. 35475) and Wilson & Son v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 255 ; T. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Myers v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 506 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1911

The same question was presented to this court in Rossman v. United States (T. D. 31321), in which case we followed the holding in United States v. … The decision of- the Board of General Appraisers, which held this article dutiable by similitude with emery, is affirmed. Smith, Barber, DeVries, and Martin,'Judges, concur.

United States v. J. P. Reiss Co.

18 C.C.P.A. 159 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 3, 1930

United States v. Jules Raunheim, 17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 425, 431, T. D. 43867, and cases therein cited. … United States v. International Forwarding Co., 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 198 , T. D. 42235.

Edward Jefferson (Inc.) v. United States

18 C.C.P.A. 322 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 21, 1931

United States v. Salomon, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 246 , T. D. 31277; United States v. Brown & Co., 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 47 , T. D. 38296; United States v. Stone & Downer, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 293 , T. … D. 40296; United States v. Makaroff et al., 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 531 , T. D. 43263.

Tilge v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 129 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1911

In United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. ( 91 U. … In Aldridge et al. v.

Guiterman, Rosenfeld & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 514 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 12, 1915

This court, in Universal Shipping Co. et al. v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 245 ; T. D. 33479), had merchandise of the identical form and material before it for consideration. … This point, however, was not decided by the Board of General Appraisers and was not argued nor submitted for decision in, and therefore not decided by, this court. It is deemed to have been waived. Affirmed.

United States v. Irwin

7 Ct. Cust. 360 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 21, 1916

The Board of General Appraisers sustained tbe protest in tbis particular and tbe Government appeals to tbis court for a review of that decision. Paragraph 391 was construed by tbis court in United States v. … Magone v. Wiederer ( 159 U. S., 555 ); Magone v. Heller ( 150 U. S., 70 ); Cadwalader v. Wanamaker ( 149 U. S., 532 ); Walker v. Seeberger ( 149 U. S., 541 ); Chew Hing Lung v. Wise ( 176 U. S., 156 ); Meyer v.

Nootka Packing Co. v. United States

22 C.C.P.A. 464 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 7, 1935

In Neuman & Sehwiers Co. et al. v. United States, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 64 , T. D. 33310, hapas, with the bone extracted, and cooked and canned, were held to be hams, and not prepared or preserved meats. In Brown & Co. v. … In Smith v.

General Motors Corp. v. United States International Trade Commission & Kuhlman Corp.

687 F.2d 476 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 3, 1982

.” *123 Consolidated Edison Co. v. Labor Board, 305 U.S. 197, 229 [1938]. … Labor Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. 292, 300 [1939].

United States v. Downing

1 Ct. Cust. 337 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 20, 1911

The Board of General Appraisers found that they were in chief value of metal. It is made perfectly clear by the record that they are at least substantially in part of metal. … In February, 1909, in the case of the United States v. Berlinger (167 Fed.

Field v. United States

19 C.C.P.A. 366 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 29, 1932

D. 37993; United States v. Grass Bros., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 33 , T. D. 40866; Mayer & Co. et al. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 390 , T. D. 41321; Kayser & Co. et al. v. Pevny, United States Impleaded, 13 Ct. … D. 41368, and Sloane v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 463 , T. D. 37049. The Government relies upon the decisions in Neuss, Hesslein & Co. v. United States, 142 Fed. 281 ; Billwiller Bros. v. United States, T.

In re Avery

166 F.2d 193 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 10, 1948

See Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 303 U. S. 545 ; In re Allatt, 28 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1367, 121 F. (2d) 545, 50 USPQ 214 ; and In re Lincoln et al., 29 C. C. P. A. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. By reason of illness, O’Connell, Judge, was not present at the argument of this case and did not participate in the decision.

United States v. International Harvester Co.

23 C.C.P.A. 55 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1935

Friedlander Co. v. United States, 19 Ct. Cust. Appls. 198 ; Alexander & Oviatt v. United States, 21 Ct. Cust. Appls. 97 , and A. Ackerman & Sons v. United States, 21 Ct. Cust. … The Supreme Court, in United States v. Perry, 146 U.

Melville Shoe Corporation v. Lester Pincus Shoe Corporation

305 F.2d 884 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 24, 1962

305 F.2d 884 MELVILLE SHOE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. LESTER PINCUS SHOE CORPORATION, Appellee. Patent Appeal No. 6802. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. July 25, 1962. … application asserts use in interstate commerce since December 9, 1950 while appellant's registration states that its mark has been continuously used and applied to said goods since June 10, 1932. 2 The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Faber, Coe & Gregg (Inc.) v. United States

19 C.C.P.A. 8 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1931

Brown v. State of Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419 ; Almy v. California, 24 How. 169 ; Robbins v. Shelby County, 120 U. S. 489 ; May v. New Orleans, 178 U. S. 496 ; Fairbank v. United States, 181 U. S. 283 ; United States v. … Brown v. Maryland and May v. New Orleans, supra.