Case law

Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 451 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 18, 1926

Í5326-G and 15327-G Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co. v. … Smith v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 489 , T. D. 31527. The judgment entered by the board is in all respects regular and seems to us to properly determine the issues in the case.

Porto Rico Brokerage Co. v. United States

76 F.2d 605 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 19, 1935

Marriott v. Brune et al., 9 How. (50 U. S.) 619, 631, 13 L. Ed. 282 ; Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. (75 U. S.) 123, 136, 19 L. Ed. 382 ; Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622 , 5 S. Ct. 1091 , 29 L. … Ed. 257 ; Pittsburgh & Southern Coal Co. v. Louisiana, 156 U. S. 590, 600 , 15 S. Ct. 459 , 39 L. Ed. 544 ; Patapsco Guano Co. v. Board of Agriculture of North Carolina, 171 U. S. 345, 353 , 18 S. Ct. 862 , 43 L.

Weber v. United States

24 C.C.P.A. 349 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 25, 1937

This argument is based upon the following authorities: Cadwalader v. Jessup and Moore Paper Co., 149 U. S. 350 ; two decisions of the Board of General Appraisers, namely, T. D. 28360 and T. … The board held it to be free of duty under the free list provision above quoted. In the second decision of the Board of General Appraisers, T.

In Re Allen

115 F.2d 936 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 9, 1940

“Appellee points out that in the Clement v. Richards v. … It is true that in the case of Clement v. Richards v.

Application of Heritage

150 F.2d 554 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 22, 1945

The exact degree of penetration of the board by the liquid is, as held by the Board of Appeals, a matter of degree only. In the case of Continental Fibre Co. v. … General Electric Co. v.

Westergaard v. United States

19 C.C.P.A. 299 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 25, 1932

Brown sauce: Wheat flour is browned and mixed with a little fat. … In the case of United States v.

Application of Marriott-Hot Shoppes, Inc. (Now by Change of Name, Marriott Corporation)

411 F.2d 1025 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 19, 1969

C. v. … Lind-berg v.

Shallus v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 317 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1913

Stairs v. Peaslee ( 18 How., 521, 527 ); Horace Day Co. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 152, 160 ); subsec. 10, sec. 28, act of 1909. … The present case is ruled by our own decisions in Wolff v. United States, supra; Harris v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 5 ; T. D. 32286), and Oelrichs v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 355 ; T. D. 32091).

Landon v. Ginzton

214 F.2d 160 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1954

The courts have ruled, over and over again, from Coffin v. Ogden, supra, to Pines v. … v.

Popular Merchandise Company, Inc. v. "21" Club, Inc.

343 F.2d 1011 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1965

Co. v. R. Harris & Co., 53 F.2d 416 , 19 CCPA 704. … In Powermatics, Inc. v.

United States v. Johnson Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 258 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 9, 1919

Smith, V. P., Importer. IV. That the assessment as made by the collector was as follows: V. … Hilton v. Merritt ( 110 U. S., 97, 107 ); Auffmordt v. Hedden ( 137 U. S., 310, 325 ). [Italics ours.] Reversed.

Application of Joseph D. Fisher

427 F.2d 833 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 11, 1970

Farbenfabriken of Elberfeld Co. v. Kuehmsted (“the aspirin case”), 171 F. 887 (N.D.Ill.1909), affd. 179 F. 701 , 103 CCA 243 (7th Cir. 1910); In re Williams, 171 F.2d 319 , 36 CCPA 756 (1948), and Parke, Davis & Co. v. … Merck & Co. v.

Ringk v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 126 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1925

In reaching this conclusion the board relied largely upon the supposed authority of the case of Rolland Fréres v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 321 , to which reference will hereinafter be made. … Murphy v. Arnson, 96 U. S. 131 ; Arthur v. Fox, 108 U. S. 125 ; Cone v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 263 ; United States v. Kress & Co., 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 443 .

Morehouse Manufacturing Corporation v. J. Strickland and Company

407 F.2d 881 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1969

Directly or indirectly, the board relied on Artichoke Industries, Inc. v. Regina Grape Products Co., 138 USPQ 687 (TTAB 1963); Eastern Metals Research Co. v. … To an even greater extent than in Shoe Corp. of America v.

Randolph v. Shoberg

590 F.2d 923 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1979

pertinent portion of the board’s opinion is as follows: In Goodrich v. … Cochran v. Kresock, supra 530 F.2d at 391 , 188 USPQ at 557 .

Maddaus v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 330 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1912

The board affirmed the validity of the reappraisement upon the theory that the decision in Oelrichs & Co. v. United States, decided by this court ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 355 ; T. … The board stated: In Oelrichs v. United States, decided by the Customs Court December 6, 1911 (T. D. 32091), we understand the Tilge case to have been modified in this respect.

Witco Chemical Company, Inc. v. Whitfield Chemical Company, Inc.

418 F.2d 1403 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 18, 1969

We agree with the board’s conclusions. See Polaroid Corp. v. Richard Mfg. Co., 52 CCPA 978, 341 F.2d 150 (1965). … The present board decision antedates these decisions. Witco Chemical Co. v. The Chemische Werke Witten G.M.B.H., Opp. No. 42,425, 157 USPQ 644 ; Opp. No. 42,421, 157 USPQ 647 ; Opp. No. 45,003, 158 USPQ 157 .

Borror v. Herz

666 F.2d 569 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 10, 1981

Bight of Cross-Examination The board relied on Nielson v. … We find no error in the board’s decisions on these issues. . In a recent opinion of this court, Reese v. Hurst v.

Application of Leo L. Hengehold

440 F.2d 1395 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1971

See also Torok v. Watson, 122 F.Supp. 788 , (DC 1954). The decision of the board as to the scope of its jurisdicton under 35 U.S.C. §§ 7 and 134 is affirmed. … Bruns v. Watson, 109 USPQ 8 (D.D.C. 1956), aff’d. Watson v. Bruns, 99 U.S. App.D.C. 327, 239 F.2d 948 (1956).

R. G. Barry Corp. v. Mushroom Makers, Inc.

609 F.2d 1002 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1979

.] *1005 OPINION The board is, for the most part, correct in its comment that this court will not take jurisdiction over appeals from “non final” board decisions or from interlocutory orders of the board. Toro v. … Unlike the situation in Toro v. Hardigg, the board in the instant case denied a motion for summary judgment.