Case law

Middleton v. United States

28 C.C.P.A. 214 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 28, 1940

In the case of Dunham & Co. v. … In the case of Middleton v.

United States v. John Aquino, Inc.

21 C.C.P.A. 26 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 12, 1933

v. … Porges & Levy v. United States, supra; Universal Mercantile Co. v. United States, supra.

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.

Montemayor e Hijos v. United States

24 C.C.P.A. 7 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 20, 1936

It is insisted that this constituted a retrial on ex parte affidavits, and our decisions in Brown & Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 26 , T. D. 39895, and Rietmann-Pilcer Co. et al. v. United States, 16 Ct. … Meyer v. Witter, 25 Mo. 83 ; Sartor v. Bolinger, 59 Texas 411 .

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.

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.

Hartmann Trunk Co. v. United States

27 C.C.P.A. 254 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 4, 1940

Thomass v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 86 , T. D. 31107; John A. Paterson & Co. v. United States, 166 Fed. 733 ; United States v. Roesseler & Hasslacher Chemical Co., 137 Fed. 770 ; Hahn v. … United States, 121 Fed. 152 ; Arthur v. Fox, 108 U. S. 125 ; Weilbacher et al. v. Merritt, 37 Fed. 85 ; Sykes v. Magone, 38 Fed. 494 .

Schick v. United States

34 C.C.P.A. 95 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1946

In Sheldon v. United States, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 42 , T. … We further stated that “* * * In the case of Mason v.

Pratt & Lambert, Inc. v. Chapman & Rodgers, Inc.

136 F.2d 909 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1943

The witness Cornelius Brown, resident manager of the eastern division of the appellant company, who had been with the company for 19 years and whose office was located in Long Island City, New York, testified, among other … In the case of E-Z Waist Co. v. Reliance Mfg. Co., 52 App. D.

Cosmos Textile Corp. v. United States

21 C.C.P.A. 124 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1933

The Magone v. … D. 23348, where the Board of United States General Appraisers (now United States Customs Court) passed upon the dutiable classification of cotton and jute crash.

United States v. Half Moon Manufacturing & Trading Co.

24 C.C.P.A. 232 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 9, 1936

United States, 142 Fed. 214 ; Koons, Wilson & Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 418 , T. D. 40589; Vandegrift & Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 30 , T. D. 40865; United States v. Albers Bros. … Ill, at page 429, we find the following: Gluten in the form of a light-brown powder, dried at a low temperature, is a commercial product, being used for the manufacture of bread and biscuits for diabetic patients: it usually

United States v. Dyson Shipping Co.

29 C.C.P.A. 148 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 3, 1941

In the case of United States v. Guth Stern & Co., Inc., 21 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 246, T. D. 46777, we reviewed the decision of this court in the case of Simon, Buhler & Baumann (Inc.) v. United States, 8 *151 Ct. Cust. … As stated in the case of United States v.

Atlas Export Co. v. United States

43 C.C.P.A. 122 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 15, 1956

Co. v. United States, 21 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 231, T. … D. 43865), or a tombstone (if unen-graved) might be made into a table top, or a drain board, or a-bench.

Sherwin-Williams Co. v. United States

38 C.C.P.A. 13 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 3, 1950

D. 32386; United States v. Ricard-Brewster Oil Co., 29 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 192, C. A. D. 191; United States v. Browne Vintners Co., Inc., 34 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 112, C. A. D. 351; Kerr-Gifford & Co., Inc. v. … In the case of United States v. Field & Co., 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 406 , T.

Unites States v. British Cars & Parts, Inc.

47 C.C.P.A. 114 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 8, 1960

Maier, Morton & Browne v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 115 , T.D. 38753, relied on by the Government, involved goods shipped from England to Canada, and then imported into the United States. … Returning to the Government’s position here, United States v. Henry Maier, 21 CCPA 41, T.

Conover v. Downs

35 F.2d 59 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 4, 1929

This is an appeal, in an interference proceeding, from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents affirming the decision of the Board of Examiners in Chief which, in turn, had affirmed the decision of the Examiner of Interferences … Chapman v. Wintroath, 252 U. S. 126, 137 , 40 S. Ct. 234 , 64 L. Ed. 491 .

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 ).

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.

In re Snyder

557 F.2d 820 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1977

Background In Patent Appeal No. 76-669, we affirmed the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals in an unpublished opinion dated April 21, 1977. … S. v. McCracken ......75-1253 † U. S. v.

United States v. International Forwarding Co.

18 C.C.P.A. 60 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1930

United States v. Raunheim, 17 C.C. P.A. 425, T. D. 43867. … Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 389 , T.