Case law

Wallpaper Manufacturers, Ltd. v. Crown Wallcovering Corp.

680 F.2d 755 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 17, 1982

The board’s holding that WPML has not lost rights throughout the country means that it has sufficient rights to support its registration. Dawn Donut Co. v. … In Otto Roth & Co. v.

United States v. Macy & Co.

13 Ct. Cust. 245 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 21, 1925

We have uniformly held that *249 the Board of General Appraisers is a judicial tribunal. United States v. Kurtz et al., 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 144 ; United States v. McConnaughey Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 112 ; T. D. 40944. … Co. v. Kidd, 146 Fed. 499 ; Rathbone v. Rathbone, 4 Pick. 89 (92). The Board of General Appraisers construed the petition filed in this case as sufficient under Rule XXXVI.

Stevenson v. International Trade Commission

612 F.2d 546 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 20, 1979

See United States v. … Graham v.

King Candy Co. v. Eunice King's Kitchen, Inc.

496 F.2d 1400 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 6, 1974

That refusal was error, as is evident from our opinions in Contour Chair-Lounge Co., Inc., v. The Englander Co., Inc., 51 CCPA 833, 324 F.2d 186 , 139 USPQ 285 (1963); David Crystal, Inc. v. … Shelburne Shirt Co., Inc., 59 CCPA 1248, 465 F.2d 926 , 175 USPQ 112 (1972); and Anderson, Clayton and Co. v. Krier, 478 F.2d 1246 , 178 USPQ 46 (CCPA, 1973).

Knickerbocker Toy Co. v. Faultless Starch Co.

467 F.2d 501 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 12, 1972

Mazer v. … The Board also relied on Merrick v.

Whittier v. Borchardt

154 F.2d 522 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 4, 1946

In so holding, the board cited and relied upon our decision in the case of Lavin v. Pierotti, supra. … In support of the latter statement, the board cited the case of McParland v.

Loeb v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 385 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 3, 1911

Greely’s Administrator v. Burgess ( 18 How., 413 ); Burgess v. Converse (2 Curt. C. C., 216); Stairs v. Peaslee ( 18 How., 521 ); Belcher v. Linn ( 24 How., 508 ). … Nichols v. United States ( 7 Wall., 126 ), Dooley v. United States ( 182 U. S., 222 ), Schillinger v. United States ( 155 U. S., 166 ).

United States v. International Forwarding Co.

13 Ct. Cust. 579 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1926

United States v. Johnson Co., 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 258 , T. D. 38215; Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Co. (Inc.) v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 17 , T. D. 40861; Johnson Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 373 , T. … D. 41318; Sandoz Chemical Works v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 466 , T. D. 41365; Metz & Co. (Inc.) v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 412 , T. D. 41340.

National Hat Pin Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 435 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 27, 1914

In United States v. Lun Chong & Co. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 468 ; T. … United States v. Bennett ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 249 ; T.

Application of Rudolf Wiechert

370 F.2d 927 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 19, 1967

Steinmetz v. Allen, 192 U.S. 543 , 24 S.Ct. 416 , 48 L.Ed. 555 (1904); Butterworth v. United States ex rel. … It seems to us that an invalid appointment would not so vitiate a board’s decision that neither waiver nor abandonment of the defect would be possible. In United States v. L. A.

Stahel & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 430 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1923

D. 32286); Horace Day Co. v. United States (3 id. 152; T. D. 32456); United States v. Bradshaw & Co. (5 id. 121; T. D. 34168); United States v. Johnson Co. (7 id. 466; T. D. 37050); United States v. … Horace Day Co. v. United States, supra. Accordingly we affirm the decision of the board.

United States v. Bloomingdale Bros. & Co.

10 Ct. Cust. 149 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1920

Between the filing of the protests in May, 1914, and the hearing thereof by the board in September, 1918, this court in United States v. Sherman & Sons ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 271 ; T. … In Erhardt v. Schroeder ( 155 U.

Maremont Corp. v. Air Lift Co.

463 F.2d 1114 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 27, 1972

In Klemperer v. … have reversed the board on questions which they did reach * * Myers v.

Kuttroff v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 17 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 20, 1925

.— Wolff v. … In United States v.

Searle v. Glarum

179 F.2d 974 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1950

In support of the holding last described, the board cited the decisions of this and other courts in the cases of Bain-bridge v. Walton, 104 F.2d 808 , 26 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1417; Electro-Metallurgical Company et al. v. … See Senkus v. Johnston, 166 F.2d 597 , 35 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1008. See also Thurston v. Wulff et al., 164 F.2d 612 , 35 C.C.P.A., Patents, 794.

United States v. Eytinge

4 Ct. Cust. 266 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1913

decision of the board, which is reported as Abstract 29504 (T. … The appellees in' support of their several contentions especially cite United States v. Herrmann ( 145 Fed., 843 ); same case ( 154 Fed., 196 ); and also Vandegrift v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 219 ; T.

Tiffany & Co. v. Columbia Industries, Inc.

455 F.2d 582 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 2, 1972

See: Roman Meal Company v. Hunt Foods and Industries, Inc., 131 USPQ 236 (TT&A Bd., 1961). … American Novawood Corp. v. U.S. Plywood-Champion Papers, Inc., 57 CCPA 1276, 1281, 426 F. 2d 823, 827 , 165 USPQ 613 , 616 (1970). We think that at least with respect to Eeg.

United States v. Heckman

1 Ct. Cust. 272 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 13, 1911

By reference to these decisions and others of the board on the same or similar statutes and relating to similar importations, it is found that they are based upon the holding in United States v. … United States v. Falk ( 204 U. S., 143, 152 ).

United States v. Morris European & American Express Co.

3 Ct. Cust. 146 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1912

Dutilh v. Maxwell (2 Blatch., 541, Fed. Gas. No. 4, 207). … See also Gauthier v. Bell ( 10 Fed.

In re Isler

152 F.2d 1002 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 7, 1946

Iii the case of Hemphill Co. v. Coe, Commissioner of Patents, 121 F. (2d) 897, 74 App. D. … Hemphill Co. v. Coe. Commissioner of Patents, supra.