Case law

Shell Oil Co. v. United States

27 C.C.P.A. 94 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 30, 1939

Garrett, Presiding Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from the judgment of the United States Customs Court, First Division, Brown, J., dissenting, overruling the protest by *95 which appellant brought … D. 37645, and United States v. Tower & Sons, 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 135 , T.

United States v. Katzenstein & Keene

16 Ct. Cust. 93 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1928

them were too small and tender for wiping rags and could not be used or sold at a profit as a wiping rag; that 90 per centum of all rags collected are used for paper making and the rest for roofing felt, shingles, fiber board … Harley Co. v. United States, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 112, 114, 115 , T. D. 41644. The rags are entitled to free entry as “junk, old,” and the judgment of the United States Customs Court is affirmed.

United States v. Kitchen

17 C.C.P.A. 265 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1929

V. … D. 32386; United States v. Fuld, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 234, 235 , T. D. 33476; United States v. Brown Durrell & Co., C. C. A., First Circuit, 127 Fed. 793, 796, 798 ; Bradstreet v. Thomas, 12 Peters (37 U.

United States v. Winkler-Koch Engineering Co.

41 C.C.P.A. 121 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 2, 1953

The opinion of the board (now the court) expressly so held. [Italics quoted.] … The decision in the Hill v. R. D.

United States v. Milton Bradley Co.

16 Ct. Cust. 117 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1928

Tbe case of Steinhardt & Bro. v. … See Barham et al. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 536 , T.

United States v. Columbo Co.

21 C.C.P.A. 177 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 12, 1933

A leading case relating to works of art, in the tariff sense, is that of United States v. … Such was the situation in the case of Lazarus, Rosenfeld & Lehmann v. United States, 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 508 , T.D. 32247, and in the case of United States v. Downing & Co., 6 Ct. Cust.

United States v. American Viscose Corp.

30 C.C.P.A. 240 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 5, 1943

Co. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 519 , T. D. 39664, decided May 24, 1923. … The threads were then desized and untwisted and the fibers therefrom were arrayed on a piece of board covered with black satin. Two parallel lines were drawn on the black satin V/z inches apart * * *.

United States v. Compania Azucarera Del Camuy, Inc.

45 C.C.P.A. 4 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1957

Tower & Sons v. United States, T. D. 41118, 48 Treas. Dec. 220 ; United States v. J. A. Freeman & Son, 29 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 103, C. A. D. 177; United States v. Horstmann Co., 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 443 , T. … . & Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 519 , T. D. 41392; Schoemann & Mayer, Inc. v. United States, (C. D. 630) 8 Cust. Ct. 325 ; United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 20 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 295, T.

In re Oishel

39 F.2d 697 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1930

Hateibld, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the decision of the examiner denying claims 1 to 6, inclusive, and 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 21 … The examiner has allowed four claims which appear to. cover appellants' contribution to the art, and, as slated in Prescott v. Rummler, 1922, C.

Ono Trading Co. v. United States

23 C.C.P.A. 124 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1935

Bernstein v. … See Basser’s Silk Co. v. United States, 23 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 141, T. D. 48008, decided concurrently herewith.

United States v. W. X. Huber Co.

30 C.C.P.A. 183 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 1, 1943

See Hamilton v. United States, su-pra. … Co. v.

Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.

544 F.2d 1098 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 24, 1976

This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), 189 USPQ 310 (1975), sustaining appellee’s opposition to the registration of the wood-mark HY-TOP for … Frantz v. Sky Distributing Co., 169 USPQ 185 , 189, and n. 3 (TTAB 1971).

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

150 F.2d 422 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 25, 1945

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., 40 F.2d 108, 111 , 17 C.C.P.A.,Patents, 1048.” It will be observed that the first syllable of each of the marks in question is the word “thio.”

United States v. M. Bernstein & Sons

19 C.C.P.A. 242 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 27, 1931

.- In Brennan v. … See Brewster v. Gage, 280 U. S. 327, 336 ; Universal Battery Co. v. United States, 281 *248 U. S. 580, 583 ; Fawcus Machine Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 375, 378 .

United States v. Merckens

17 C.C.P.A. 318 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 25, 1929

Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 399 ; Brooks v. Marburg, 11 Wheat. 78, 90 . Recently in United States v. B. Illfelder & Co. and Louis Wolf & Co 17 C. C. P. A. 197, T. … In United States v. Wanamaker, 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 310 , T.

DeFremery & Co. v. United States

138 F.2d 161 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1943

Craig & Co. et al. v. United States, T. … The Board of General Appraisers there held that it was not a cordial but that it fell within the category of a fruit juice containing alcohol.

United States v. Bernard

15 Ct. Cust. 424 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 30, 1928

In United States v. Lorsch & Co., 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 109 , T. … In this connection reference may be had to Durbrow & Hearne v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 225 , T. D. 40230.

Fynaut v. United States

23 C.C.P.A. 265 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 6, 1936

United States v. American Brown Boveri Electric Corporation, 17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 329, T. D. 43776, and cases therein cited. … United States v. Danker & Marston ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 522 [524]; T. D. 32251); United States v. American Chicle Co. ( 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 98 ; T. D. 38360); United States v. Rice Co. ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 165 ; T.

United States v. Frank P. Dow Co.

29 C.C.P.A. 48 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 5, 1941

The case of United States v. Charles Bashwiner, Lunham & Reeve, Inc., 28 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 100, C. A. D. 131, is relied upon as being controlling. … The Board of General Appraisers (now *52 the United States Customs Court) held that it was not a part of a machine, although it might be properly regarded as “a part of the operating machinery of the vessel,” but that it

Henry Pollak (Inc.) v. United States

19 C.C.P.A. 215 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 20, 1931

Judge Brown dissented. From the judgment the present appeal was taken. Exhibit 1 is agreed to be typical of the merchandise. … (Inc.) v. United States, 17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 149, 158, T.