Case law

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.

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.”

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.

Gross v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 289 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 14, 1911

The proceeding's taken consisted of filing petitions in this court for the review of the decision of the United States circuit court affirming the decision of the Board of General Appraisers. … This would seem to find support in the case of Yeaton v. Lenox ( 32 U. S., 220 ).

United States v. Koons

15 Ct. Cust. 352 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 5, 1927

D. 40847; Solomon & Son v. United States, 13 Id. 353, T. D. 41256; and United States v. Wyle & Bros., 14 Id. 297, T. D. 41910. … The court said: We think this case is decided by the case of Solomon v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 353 , T.

In Re Einstein

46 F.2d 373 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 3, 1931

Wappler Electric Co. v. Bronx Hospital, etc., (D. C.) 28 F.(2d) 419 ; Grinnell Washing Machine Co. v. Johnson Co., 247 U. S. 426 , 38 S. Ct. 547 , 62 L. Ed. 1196 . … The decision of the Board of Appeals is ■affirmed. Affirmed.

Diamond Match Co. v. United States

49 C.C.P.A. 52 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 11, 1962

Penick & Ford (Ltd., Inc.) v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 432 , T.D. 40611; Armour and Company v. United States, 29 Cust. Ct. 296 , C.D. 1482, and cases cited; The American Distilling Company v. … Jones v. Farrar, 146 Ohio St. 467 , 66 N.E. 2d 531 ; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cardillo, 99 F. 2d 432 ; United States v. Morris, 252 E. 2d 643; 50 Am.

Clark Equipment Company v. Baker-Lull Corporation (Otis Elevator Company, Alleged Assignee, Substituted)

288 F.2d 926 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 5, 1961

Huntington Laboratories, Inc. v. Onyx Oil & Chemical Co., 165 F.2d 454 , 35 CCPA 819, 820; Cf. Societe Anonyme Marne et Champagne v. Myers, 250 F.2d 374 , 45 CCPA 755, 759; Hygrade Sylvania Corp. v. … Opposer suggests that the Chairman of the assignor’s Board of Trustees, who signed the assignment, was not authorized to transfer its property.

California Fruit Wrapping Mills (Inc.) v. United States

19 C.C.P.A. 381 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 29, 1932

It is ready to be made into either pulp board or into paper, and the elimination therefrom of the water is merely the first step in its manufacture into the new product. … United States v. Felsenthal & Co., 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 15 , T. D. 42713. The judgment of the United States Customs Court is affirmed.

May Co. v. United States

17 C.C.P.A. 190 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 28, 1929

On review, the Customs Court, with Justice Brown dissenting, reversed the judgment of appraisement and found that the foreign values, as found by the local appraiser, were the dutiable values. … Johnson Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 373 , T. D. 41318; Happel & McAvoy v. United States, supra.

Mengel Co. v. United States

20 C.C.P.A. 399 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1933

In his dissenting opinion Judge Brown declares that the question of whether drawback is a privilege is not involved in this case and further holds that the decision of this court in Akeroyd v. United States, 19 C. C. P. … In Richards v.

Border Brokerage Co. v. United States

48 C.C.P.A. 113 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 2, 1961

The logs are debarked in lumber mills so that the waste pieces which are removed from the logs, when they are squared into boards, may be sold to pulp mills for use in making paper pulp. … As was said in United States v. Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., 29 CCPA 48, C.A.D. 169, “We know of no sound holding that a machine which merely makes the material that later is used by another machine is part of the latter.”

F. F. G. Harper & Co. v. United States

27 C.C.P.A. 9 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1939

Levy & Levis Co. v. United States, 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 89 , T. D. 34130; United States v. Kagawa & Co. et al., 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 388 , T. D. 34934; E. H. Shallus & Co. et al. v. United States, 18 C. C. P. A. … —Brown & Co. v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 415 ; T. D. 35977); Neuman v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 64 ; T. D. 33310); Chew Hing Lung v. Wise ( 176 U. S., 156 ). Cf. Nootka Packing Co. et al. v.

Sparklets Corporation v. Walter Kidde Sales Co.

104 F.2d 396 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 19, 1939

The Board of Appeals,' however, did not in its decision in the Campbell case, supra, mention trade-mark registration, nor did the commissioner in the instant case suggest the feasibility of a design patent. … Coshocton Glove Co. v. Buskeye Glove Co., 90 F.2d 660 , 24 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1338. In so doing it was proper to consider the official records in the Patent Office including the Campbell patent.

Bryant & Heffernan, Inc. v. United States

42 C.C.P.A. 185 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 28, 1955

S. v. Stewart, 133 Fed. 811 , T. D. 25898. … Von Damm v. United States, 70 Treas. Dec. 214 , 221, T. D. 48485.

Physicians & Hospitals Supply Co. v. Bayer-Semesan Co.

150 F.2d 422 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 25, 1934

which appellee uses its mark “Thiosan” is in the form of powder; that it is mixed with water and used as a spray on turfed areas, principally putting greens on golf courses, for the prevention and control of so-called “brown … California Packing Corporation v. Tillman & Bendel, Inc., 17 C. O. P. A. 1048, 40 Fed. (2d) 108. It will be observed that the first syllable of each of the marks in question is the word “thio.”

Herbert G. Schwarz, Dba Ski Imports v. The United States

417 F.2d 1391 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 20, 1969

Schwarz, d/b/a Ski Imports v. … Gallagher & Ascher Company v. United States, 52 CCPA 11, C.A.D. 849 (1964). United States v.

United States v. Border Brokerage Co.

48 C.C.P.A. 38 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 8, 1960

Claimed: Paragraph 1413 as modified by T.D. 51802: Payers and paper board and pulpboard, including cardboard and leatherboard or compress leather, embossed, out, die-cut, or stamped into designs or shapes, such as initials … United States v. Buss & Co., 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 110 , T.D. 34138.

Schaefer Alkaloid Works v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 128 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1916

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importers appealed. … United States v. Strauss ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 180, 182 ; T. D. 32464). The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Platt & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 401 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 13, 1922

They are distinguishable from the fans referred to in United States v. Reid ( 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 85 ; T. D. 38357) and the condensers in Todd Shipyard Corporation v. United States ( 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 273 ; T. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.