Case law

United States v. F. W. Woolworth Co.

22 C.C.P.A. 134 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1934

The case of Kenyon Co. v. United States, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 344 , T.D. 33529, is cited by counsel for appellee in support of that proposition. … In the case of United States v. Bernard, Judae & Co., 15 Ct. Cust.

Lee v. United States

15 Ct. Cust. 202 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1927

Morse Bros. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 553 . … United States v. Redden, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 224 .

Herst v. Nielsen

55 F.2d 430 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1932

Turnbull v. Curtis, 27 App. D. C. 567. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

North American Mercantile Co. v. United States

18 C.C.P.A. 74 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1930

S. v. Bertrose Company.” … The game is played upon a board having 361 squares, and the number of pieces used in the game is about 250.

United States v. Harlan & Hollingsworth Corp.

8 Ct. Cust. 236 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 12, 1917

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest, and the. Government appeals to this court for a reversal of that decision. … Hinde v. Whitehouse (7 East, 558); Kenworthy v. Schofield (2 B. & C., 945). The proper test is, whether a person reading these papers would be deceived or misled as to the actual intention of the writer.

Bragg v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 22 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1911

(Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U. S., 679 ; Bank of Commerce v. Tennessee, 161 U. S., 134 .) … The ■ decision of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore affirmed.

Asiatic Petroleum Corp. v. United States

36 C.C.P.A. 9 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 10, 1948

In this connection appellant cites this court’s decision in the case of United States v. Gulf Oil Corporation, 32 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 133, C. A. D. 297. … The fuel oil was then laden on board a vessel engaged in foreign trade.

United States v. Neuman & Schwiers Co.

18 C.C.P.A. 1 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1930

The conclusion and holding of the board that it was dutiable as a “nonenumerated manufactured” article was erroneous. … Stegeman v. United States, 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 393, T. D. 34935; Benjamin Iron & Steel Co. v. United States, 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 159 , T. D. 31677. In the case of Vandiver v. United States, 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 505 , T.

Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Co. v. United States

21 C.C.P.A. 332 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 2, 1934

See Birn & Wachenheim v. Dupont Cellophane Co., 17 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 122, T.D. 43454, and cases therein cited. … The Board, in an opinion by General Appraiser Tichenor, there said: The ordinary and commonly accepted meaning of the words “derived from” is “made or prepared from”, “produced from”, or “obtained from.”

United States v. Downing

17 C.C.P.A. 194 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 28, 1929

United States v. Imperial Wall Paper Co., 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 280 -283, T. D. 41886. This is equally true with the rule of ejusdem generis, which is sometimes confused with the noscitur rule. United States v. … An illuminating discussion of the rule of noscitur a sociis is found in Brown v. Chicago, etc., 78 N.

United States v. International Forwarding Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 156 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1919

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest. The Government appeals. *157 The initial question presented for answer is, Whether or not a polari-scope is an optical instrument? This court in United States v. … The implements the subject of decision in United States v.

Athenia Steel & Wire Co. v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 494 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1911

. * * * It was the evident purpose of the importers at the hearing before the board to sustain their claim by testimony that the imported merchandise was commercially known in this country as “steel wire rods.” … A case precisely in point is that of Worthington v. Robbins ( 139 U. S., 337, 340 ). The merchandise there was “white hard enamel.”

National Zinc Co. v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 145 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1916

United States v. Proctor & Co. ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 44 ; T. … The decision of the board overruling the protests is accordingly affirmed.

United States v. Browne Vintners Co.

34 C.C.P.A. 112 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1946

Compliance with such may be the subject of proof before the Board of General Appraisers [now the United States Customs Court]. … See also Marriott v. Brune et al., 9 How. 619 ; Cornelius W. Lawrence v. John Caswell and Solomon T. Caswell, 13 How. 488, 495 ; In re E. L. Goodsell Company, T. D. 18078, G. A. 3880, affirmed, United States v. E. L.

Thomsen & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 69 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 14, 1914

Proctor Co,, and Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. … . *72 In United States v.

In re Merritt

35 F.2d 783 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 2, 1929

This decision was sustained by the Board of Examiners in Chief March 27, 1927, and by the Commissioner of Patents on August 29, 1927. … Gross v. Norris, 18 Fed. (2nd) 418; In re Owen, 25 Fed. (2nd) 776, 58 App. D. C. 129; Franklin Knitting Mills v. Gropper Knitting Mills, 7 Fed. (2nd) 381; Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co., 148 U. S. 674 .

Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 242 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1911

In Cramer v. Arthur ( 102 U. … See also United States v. Klingenberg ( 153 U. S., 93 ) and Hadden v. Merritt ( 115 U. S., 25 ).

Kirschbraun v. Doherty

90 F.2d 251 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1937

On appeal, the Board of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Examiner of Interferences. … The decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office is, therefore, modified, being affirmed as to counts 2 and 3 and reversed as to count 1.

Bush v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 345 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 21, 1927

D. 34864) this board held that the first portion of paragraph 17, dealing with packages of less than 2p£ pounds, did not affect any article on the free list, “while the latter part of the paragraph, referring to chemicals … United States v. Vitelli & Son, 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 151 , T. D. 34194; United States v. Sobering et al., 123 Fed. 65 , and cases cited therein; United States v. Stone & Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 233 ; T. D. 41180.

Whitlock Cordage Co. v. Untied States

13 Ct. Cust. 656 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 27, 1926

The Board of General Appraisers held that the provision in paragraph 372, sufra, for "all other textile machinery or parts thereof, finished or unfinished, not specially provided for,” was intended to be sufficiently comprehensive … (Inc.) et al. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 474 , T. D. 41367; Kayser & Co. (Inc.) et al. v. Pevny et al., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 479 , T. D. 41368.