Case law

In re N.C. Trading

586 F.2d 221 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 26, 1978

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). In the related field of income tax litigation, the Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Phillips v. … Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965).

Mishawaka Rubber and Woolen Mfg. Co. v. Bata Narodni Podnik (Now by Change of Name, Svit Narodni Podnik)

222 F.2d 279 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 28, 1955

McLean v. Fleming, 96 U.S. 245, 254 , 24 L.Ed. 828 ; Crystal Corp. etc. v. Manhattan Chemical Mfg. Co., Inc., etc., 75 F.2d 506 , 22 C.C. P.A., Patents, 1027; Rosenblum v. … Brown-Brockmeyer Co. v. Westinghouse Elect. Corp., 197 F.2d 871 , 39 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1050, 1055.

United States v. Charles R. Allen, Inc.

37 C.C.P.A. 110 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1950

Wilkens & Co. v. United States, T. D. 15417, G. … United States v. Sehlbach (CCA — 2d) 90 Fed. 798 ; Pickhardt v. Merritt, 132 U. S. 252 ; Newman v. Arthur, 109 U. S. 132 .

In Re Riverbank Canning Co.

95 F.2d 327 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1938

In re Maclin-Zimmer-McGill Tobacco Co., Inc., 49 App.D.C. 181 , 262 F. 635 ; Nestle & Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Co. v. Walter Baker & Co., Limited, 37 App.D.C. 148 ; J. P. Heilbronn Co. v. … In the case of Crane v.

United States v. Rotberg & Krieger

24 C.C.P.A. 441 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 22, 1937

Brown J., who wrote another, held it to be classifiable under paragraph 1765 and so duty free. … White & Co. v. United States, 23 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 224, T. D. 48061.

Coleco Industries, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission

573 F.2d 1247 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 6, 1978

Co. v. … Import Motors, Ltd. v.

United States v. Eimer

28 C.C.P.A. 10 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1940

D. 46727 and Buehne Steel Wool Co. v. United States, 159 Fed. 107 . In Lussky, White & Coolidge, Inc. v. … In Buehne Steel Wool Co. v.

J. S. Staedtler, Inc. v. United States

25 C.C.P.A. 136 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 25, 1937

That court (Brown, J., dissenting), largely upon the authority of Amalgamated Textiles, Ltd. v. United States, 24 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 74, T. D. 48378, wherein we affirmed that court’s decision in T. … D. 47931 (we relying upon the decisions in Cramer v. Arthur, 102 U. S. 612 , and Hadden v. Merritt, 115 U.

Application of Martin

195 F.2d 303 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 18, 1952

United States et al. v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., et al., 310 U.S. 534, 543 , 60 S.Ct. 1059 , 84 L.Ed. 1345 ; United States v. Hendee, 124 U.S. 309 , 8 S.Ct. 507 , 31 L.Ed. 465 . … Heller & Son v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 191 F.2d 954 .

Avakian Bros. v. United States

41 C.C.P.A. 80 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 17, 1953

Harper Co. v. United States, Abs. 13158, 58 Treas. Dec. 980 ; Lian Bros. v. United States, 15 Cust. Ct. 58 , C. D. 941. … The importer bases this argument on the rulings of Swan & Finch Co. v. United States, 190 U. S. 143 ; United States v. National Sugar Refining Co., 39 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 96, C. A. D. 470; Flagler v.

J. R. Clark Co. v. Rich Ladder & Manufacturing Co.

168 F.2d 314 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1948

In subsequent paragraphs it is alleged that Rich has extensively used the term “rigid” printed in capital letters in advertising its various products including ironing boards of various types, ladders of various types and … American Druggists’ Syndicate v. United States Industrial Alcohol Co., 55 App. D. C. 140, 2 Fed. (2d) 942; Otard, Inc. v. Italian Swiss Colony, 31 C. C. P A. 955, 141 Fed. (2d) 706.

Birn v. Du Pont Cellophane Co.

17 C.C.P.A. 122 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 12, 1929

Compound, v. 1. trans. 3. To form by uniting or mixing two or more elements or materials. 4. To make; constitute; form; establish. In United States v. … To the same effect is the case of Smith v. Rheinstrom, 65 Fed. 984 , and the case of Mackie v. Erhardt, 77 Fed. 610 . *126 In Monticelli Bros. et al. v. United States, 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 21 , T.

United States v. Marshall Field & Co.

94 F.2d 210 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 24, 1938

Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 8, 10 ; United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 7 Cranch, 32 ; Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 441, 448 ; Stevenson v. Fain, 195 U. S. 165 . … The Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247, 252 .

United States v. Lilly & Co.

14 Ct. Cust. 332 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 21, 1927

Overton & Co. v. United States, 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 422 ; Morimura Bros. v. United States, 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 181 ; United States v. Gen. Elec. Co., 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 287 ; Burlington Blind Co. v. United States, 1 Ct. … Appls. 374 ; United States v. Mescall, 215 U. S. 26 .

Radio Corp. of America v. Rayon Corp. of America

139 F.2d 833 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 16, 1943

The above quotation was quoted with approval in the case of Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company v. A. & P. Radio Stores, Inc., 20 F. … Co. v. California Cedar Products Co., 56 App. D. C. 156. In that case the appeilee applied for the registration of the mark “Duro” applied to wall board.

United States v. Klipstein & Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 28 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 15, 1913

appraiser and collector in listing this importation as subject to duty under paragraph 3 has been overcome by the testimony offered on behalf of the importer not disproved by that of the Government; In Stone & Downer Co. v. … The decision of the board is reversed.

United States v. Nippon Import & Trading Co.

30 C.C.P.A. 89 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 2, 1942

Shalom & Co., Inc. v. United States, 22 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 85, T. D. 47067; United States v. Stone & Downer Co. et al, 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 82 , T. D. 42732; Del Gaizo Distributing Corp., Mennella Bros. Inc. v. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers (now the United States Customs Court) sustaining the protest was affirmed by this court.

United States v. John H. Faunce (Inc.)

21 C.C.P.A. 80 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1933

In Chew Hing Hang v. Wise, 176 U. S. 156 , the court approved the principle laid down in Magone v. Heller, supra, and distinguished the facts in that case from the facts then before it. The principle in the Magone v. … D. 37979; United States v. Hillier’s Son Co., 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 216 , T. D. 41706; United States v. Lo Curto & Funk, 17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 19, T. D. 43319.

P. Beiersdorf & Co. v. United States

31 C.C.P.A. 158 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 7, 1944

In Walsh v. United States, T. D. 25212, 7 Treas. … The Circuit Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit, in United States v.

Stone v. United States

19 C.C.P.A. 234 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 27, 1931

Pacific Iron & Metal Co. et al. v. United States, 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 433 , T. D. 42605. … United States v. Stone & Downer, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 293 , T. D. 40296.