Case law

W. N. Proctor Co. v. United States

40 C.C.P.A. 33 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1952

United States v. C. J. Tower & Sons, 38 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 131, 136, C. A. D. 450; United States v. Riebe, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 19 , T. D. 30776; Esposito et al. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 334 , T. … United States v. Stone & Downer Company, 274 U. S. 225, 239 . Report of the Tariff Board on Schedule K, 1912, at page 420, states: In former times Spain, celebrated for many things, was also noted for its fine sheep.

Zemansky v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 515 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 24, 1923

D. 38437): United States v. Morris European & American Express Co. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 146 ; T. D. 32386); Stone & Co. v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 439 ; T. D. 37009); United States v. Reid ( 10 Ct. Cust. … D. 24909), tbe board said: That where the Secretary of the Treasury is specifically authorized by any paragraph of the tariff law to make regulations for its administration, those regulations, when once made, unless in conflict

Reusch v. Fischer

49 F.2d 818 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1931

Goodrum v. Clement, 51 App. D. C. *823 184, 277 F. 586 , 279 F. 304 ; Overholt v. Matthews, 48 App. D. C. 482; Baumgardner v. Hudson, 51 App. D. C. 150, 277 F. 552 . … Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. 583, 602 , 19 L. Ed. 177 ; Milton v. Kingsley, 7 App. D. C. 531; Fritz v. Hawn, 37 F. (2d) 430, 17 C. C. P. A. 796.

Mission Dry Corp. v. Seven-Up Co.

193 F.2d 201 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 18, 1951

In support of that holding the examiner cited Rothman et al. v. Greyhound Corp. et al., 4 Cir., 175 F.2d 893 ; Vita-Var Corporation v. White Company, 76 U.S.P.Q. 267 ; Saperstein v. Grund, D.C., 85 F.Supp. 647 . … Meyer Packing Co. v. E. Kahn’s Sons Co., 1 U.S. P.Q. 229, cited by counsel for appellant is not applicable. Neither is the case of Rosemaid v. Rose Bros. Co.

United States v. Watson

28 C.C.P.A. 294 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 3, 1941

We find nothing in the record which would warrant this court in holding that appellee is precluded from selling the lead recovered from the silver sulphide ore and, therefore, the case of Brown v. … The following decisions of the tribunal below are also cited by the appellee: International Smelting Co. v. United States, T. D. 38463, 38 Treas. Dec. 558 ; American Metal Co., Ltd. v.

United States v. Kanthal Corp.

554 F.2d 456 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 21, 1977

Tower & Sons (Buffalo) v. United States, 48 Treas. Dec. 636 , Abs. 49897 (Bd. Gen. *93 Appr. 1925), Peterson Steels, Inc. v. United States, 35 Cust. Ct. 315 , Abs. 58864 (1955), and E. Dillingham, Inc. v. … If the board had adopted the industry definition of “wire,” the provision referring to cold drawn “wire rods” would have been nullified. *95 G. J. Tower was relied upon by tbe Customs Court in Peterson Steels, Inc. v.

Jenkins Bros. v. Newman Hender & Company Limited

289 F.2d 675 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 5, 1961

This type of testimony must, therefore, be carefully evaluated for, as stated by Judge Wyzanski in American Luggage Works, Inc. v. … We therefore affirm the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Affirmed. 1 . Reg. No. 32,911, issued to a predecessor May 16, 1899, renewed twice; Reg.

Application of Hittson

181 F.2d 212 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 3, 1950

The Board of Appeals in affirming the decisions of the primary examiners agreed with the reasoning contained therein. … For the reasons hereinbefore set out, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Canadian National Steamship Co. v. United States

148 F.2d 1001 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 3, 1941

The articles were carried on board the vessel from England to Canada and were intended to be carried and used on that vessel alone. … Dec. 167 ; United States v. Sickel, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 146 , T. D. 35394; Texas Transport & Terminal Co. v. United States, T. D. 45897, 62 Treas. Dec. 223 ; and Page & Jones v. United States, supra.

In Re Bendersky

187 F.2d 749 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1951

See Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152 , 71 S.Ct. 127 . 5 . United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228 , 63 S.Ct. 165 , 87 L.Ed. 232 ; Graver Mfg. Co. v. … Co. v. Jacobs, 7 Cir., 178 F.2d 794 . 8 . H. Ward Leonard, Inc., v. Maxwell Motor Sales Corp., 2 Cir., 252 F. 584, 588 .

Malone v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 1 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1925

Appellant relies upon Goat & Sheepskin Import Co. v. United States, 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 178 , T. D. 34254. … Goat & Sheepskin Import Co. v. United States, supra, is not in conflict with the judgment of the court below, and said judgment is affirmed.

In re Mims

133 F.2d 937 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1943

Such supplemental oath must be attached to and properly identify the proposed amendment. * * * * v ❖ s}e sft & sjs 70. … Co. v.

In Re Northern Pigment Co.

71 F.2d 447 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1934

Com. v. Gratz, 253 U. S. 421, 427 , 40 S. Ct. 572 , 64 L. Ed. 993 ; Standard Oil Co. v. Fed. Tr. Com. (C. C. A.) 273 F. 478 , 17 A. L. R. 389; Am. Tobacco Co. v. Fed. Tr. Com. (C. C. A.) 9 F.(2d) 579 ; Fed. Tr. Com. v. … Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. United States, 20 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 134, T. D. 45773; affirmed, 289 U. S. 48 , 53 S. Ct. 509 , 77 L. Ed. 1025 . Sixth.

The United States v. Cavalier Shipping Co., Inc., Soderhamn MacHine Manufacturing Co.

412 F.2d 245 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 24, 1969

Hill-Brown Corp. v. United States, 54 CCPA 99, C.A.D. 917 (1967). Here, we think the Customs Court erred in law in holding that the present case falls within the legal principle that governed in Saunders. … In United States v.

Reusch v. Fischer

49 F.2d 818 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1931

Goodrum v. Clement, 51 App. D. C. 184, 277 Fed. 586 ; Overholt v. Matthews, 48 App. D. C. 482; Baumgardner v. Hudson, 277 Fed. 552 . … Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. 583, 602 ; Milton v. Kingsley, 7 App. D. C. 531; Fritz v. Hawn, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 796, 37 F. (2d) 430..

Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co. v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 132 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1913

United States v. Marx ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 152 ; T. D. 31210); United States v. Carramone ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 30, 33 ; T. D. 31577). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. N. M. Albert Co.

41 C.C.P.A. 191 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 3, 1954

Stilwell v. United States, 51 Treas. Dec. 94 , T. … The dishes were white with the exception that they were irregularly colored brown upon their sloping undersides.

Amtorg Trading Corporation v. United States

71 F.2d 524 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 26, 1934

The corporation has a board of seven directors, which are elected at meetings in the New York office. Bogdanov, as the trustee for the stock, is able to, and does, select these directors. … Bank of Kentucky v. Wister, 2 Pet. 318, 324 , 7 L. Ed. 437 ; Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 11 Pet. 257, 326 , 9 L. Ed. 709 ; Moore v. Board of Trustees, 7 Ind. 462 ; Bank of U. S. v. Planters’ Bank, 9 Wheat. 904 , 6 L.

Furida, Inc. v. United States

22 C.C.P.A. 321 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 5, 1934

The trial court was of opinion that the case came within the facts and decision in Bloomingdale Bros. v. … We do not think that the point is well taken, .inasmuch as the board in that case found that the covering on a rabbit skin was commonly and commercially known as fur.

Breck & Son v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 26 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1911

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest. .The determination- of .this issue, which is one essentially of construction of law, will be aided by an examination of paragraph 251 of the tariff act of 1897, of which … United States v. Bashaw (50 Fed. Rep., 749) and Rothschild v. United States ( 179 U. S., 463 ).