Case law

United States v. Lun Chong

3 Ct. Cust. 468 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 16, 1912

Under rule 34 of the board it is incumbent upon a party, desiring to have the testimony of a case previously decided considered, to proceed by motion. See United States v. Oberle ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 527 ; T. … See Shallus v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 52 ; T. D. 32347).

Carter v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 64 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 28, 1910

In Arthur v. Morgan ( 112 U. S., 495 ) Converse v. … It is very clear that the holding of the Board of General Appraisers was'not in harmony with Hensel v. United States, nor, as we construe it, with United States v. Salambier.

Tilge v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 97 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 26, 1912

United States v. George Meier (136 Fed. Rep., 764, 765); United States v. Richter ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 167 ; T. D. 31680); Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States ( 171 U. S., 210, 217 ). … The board sustained the collector. In re Tilge (T. D. 19417).

In re Corcoran

640 F.2d 1331 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 12, 1981

Co. v. Phenix Mfg. Co., 457 F.2d 314, 320-21 [ 173 USPQ 266, 270-271 ] (7th Cir. 1972); Tool Research & Engineering Co. v. … Timely Products Corp. v. Arron, 523 F.2d 288 , 187 USPQ 257 (2d Cir. 1975); Struthers Scientific & International Corp. v. Rappl & Hoenig Co., 453 F.2d 250 , 172 USPQ 257 (2d Cir. 1972). . Package Devices, Inc. v.

In re Bayer

568 F.2d 1357 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1978

The board’s holding, in essence, is founded on the proposition enunciated in Pickering v. Holman, 459 F.2d 403, 407 , 173 USPQ 583, 585 (C.A. 9 1972) (citing 1 A. … Milburn Co. v.

Austin v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 261 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1913

This claim was sustained by the board and accordingly the protest was overruled. … Microutsicos v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 342 ; T. D., 32078); Godillot v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 408 ; T. D. 32168). The decision of the board is affirmed.

Application of Ernst Johan Jens Henriksen

399 F.2d 253 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 3, 1968

From as early as Godfrey v. Eames, 68 U.S. 317 , 17 L.Ed. 684 (1863), to Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Ferdinand Gutmann Co., 304 U.S. 159 , 58 S.Ct. 842 , 82 L.Ed. 1265 (1938) and General Talking Pictures Corp. v. … Appellant cited Indiana General Corp. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 249 F.Supp. 809 , 148 USPQ 312 (S.D.Cal.1966); Merck & Co. v. Olin Mathieson Chem. Corp., 253 F.2d 156 (4th Cir. 1958); and Otto v.

In re Bergy

563 F.2d 1031 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 6, 1977

Guaranty Trust Co. v. … The decision of the board affirming the rejection of claim 5 is reversed. REVERSED. . Merck & Co. v. Chase Chemical Co., 273 F.Supp. 68 , 155 USPQ 139 (D.N.J.1967); Merck & Co. v.

McBride v. Teeple

109 F.2d 789 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 26, 1940

In the case of Robins v. … With reference to the case of Wiley v.

Hollowform, Inc. v. Aeh

515 F.2d 1174 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1975

Vandenburgh, Trademark Law and Procedure § 10.34(b) at 407 (2d ed. 1968), citing Aeronautical Electronics, Inc. v. … American Novawood Corp. v. U. S. Plywood-Champion Papers Inc., 426 F.2d 823 , 57 CCPA 1276 (1970); 1 J. McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 20.2B (1973).

Bartley Bros. v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 363 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 14, 1912

Salomon v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 92 ; T. D. 31635); United States v. Tamm & Co. (2 ibid., 425; T. D. 32173). The collector’s classification, therefore, was erroneous. … Kahn v. United States (100 Fed. Rep., 635, 637); Arthur v. Fox ( 108 U. S., 125 ). The precise point here litigated was the subject of decision in United States v. Tiffany (117 Fed.

United States v. Basket Importing Co.

13 Ct. Cust. 98 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 11, 1925

United States v. Post & Co., 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 260 , T. D. 32568. … Ulmann v. United States, 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 357 , T. D. 34551; United States v. Baruch, 223 U. S. 191 ; Goussios & Co. v. United States, 2 Ct. Cust. Appls, 317, T. D. 32051.

Stegeman v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 208 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 18, 1911

As was said in Nichols v. … Again, in Schillinger v. United States ( 155 U.

Sheldon v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 42 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 28, 1913

The importers also cite Ehret v. … The Government cites Drury v. Ewing (7 Fed. Cas., No. 4095), decided in 1862; also, the board decisions hereinafter referred to. In Drury v.

Application of Prutton

204 F.2d 291 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1953

District of Columbia [Lubri-Zol Corp. v. … See also Hemphill Co. v.

AMF Inc. v. American Leisure Products, Inc.

474 F.2d 1403 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 22, 1973

Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 340 F.2d 960 , 52 CCPA 981 (1965); Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. … Gravel Cologne, Inc. v. Lawrence Palmer, Inc., 469 F.2d 1397 , 60 CCPA - (1972).

United States v. American Express Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 351 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1914

Oberteuffer v. Robertson ( 116 U. S., 499 ); Robertson v. Frank ( 132 U. S., 17 ); Tilge v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 149 ; T. D. 31676); Stein v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 36 ; T. D. 31007; Stein v. … That such, has been permitted in tax proceedings such as are these, see Taymouth v.

In re Fielder

471 F.2d 640 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 18, 1973

In Graham v. … Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 153 , 71 S.Ct. 127, 130 , 95 L.Ed. 162 .

Wiesner v. Weigert

666 F.2d 582 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 10, 1981

In line with Moran v. Paskert, 205 USPQ 356 , 359 (Bd.Pat.Int.1979); Brecker v. … The board considered oral affirmation of the contents of the affidavits a device to circumvent the rules. We cannot agree. The board’s interpretation of its own rules is entitled to great weight. See, e.g., Cook v.

United States v. Perkins

1 Ct. Cust. 323 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 20, 1911

We are inclined to think, in view of the ruling of the court in United States v. Trefousse and United States v. Passavant (154 Fed. Rep., 1005; T. D. 28000) and United States v. La Fetra (172 Fed. Rep., 297; T. … Krusi v. United States, supra, p. 168 (T. D. 31213).