Case law

Ilco Corp. v. Ideal Security Hardware Corp.

527 F.2d 1221 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 29, 1976

We agree with the following statement of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. … Elder Manufacturing Co. v. International Shoe Co., 194 F.2d 114 , 39 CCPA 817 (1952). In the board’s view, the record supported a date of first use by appellee in “the latter part of 1966, or early 1967.”

Golomb v. Wadsworth

592 F.2d 1184 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 8, 1979

But nothing else is necessary, for, as this court said in DeWalt, Inc. v. … Goiomb, “Checker Boards and Polyominoes,” American Mathematical Monthly 675 (Dec. 1954). . Golomb v. Wadsworth, 184 USPQ 249 (TTAB 1974) (Opposition No. 53,785, application serial No. 391,735, filed May 11, 1971). .

Salomon v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 5 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1916

Bertuch & Co. et al. v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 146 ; T. … Hay, Board of United States General Appraisers.

Kruger v. Resnick

197 F.2d 348 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1952

In support thereof, the board quoted from section 142, Interference Law and Practice, Rivise and Caesar. It also cited the following cases: Jobski v. Johnson, 47 App.D.C. 230 ; Fageol v. … “In Fageol v.

United States v. Burley & Tyrrell Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 401 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 18, 1914

but on the knowledge of the board that blown glass was not chief value. … Rule 34, Board of General Appraisers; United States v. Oberle ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 527, 528 ; T. D..31545); United States v. Lun Chong & Co. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 468, 469 ; T. D. 33041).

United States v. American Bead Co.

3 Ct. Cust. 509 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1913

The board then proceeds to review the cases upon the subject, and on the authority of United States v. Weinberg ( 139 Fed., 1006 ), which followed the case of Lorsch v. … If so, the board was in error, as we held in Cohn v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 288 ; T.

United States v. Finkelstein

15 Ct. Cust. 62 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 16, 1927

As illustrations see Fry & Friedsam v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 486 , and Tong & Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 133 . … In Klein, Messner Co. v. United States, supra, the rule of the board then in force provided that petitions for remission must be filed within 60 days from the date of final appraisement.

Wolff v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 11 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1911

We agree with the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case of United States v. Schiff (139 Fed. … For that reason the decision of the board is affirmed.

Application of John Edward James

432 F.2d 473 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 22, 1970

Customs and Patent Appeals, thereby waiving his right to proceed under section 145 of this title. * * * That premise apparently had its genesis in the opinion of this court handed down almost forty years ago, in Sundback v. … In re Marriott-Hot Shoppes, Inc., 411 F.2d 1025 , 56 CCPA 1230 (1969); United States Treasury v. Synthetic Plastics Co., 341 F.2d 157 , 52 CCPA 967 (1965).

United States v. Borgfeldt

7 Ct. Cust. 367 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 21, 1916

See Shallus v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 556 ; T. D. 31552); United States v. Myers ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 257 ; T. D. 31301); Salomon v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 92 ; T. … D. 35503); Edwards’s Lessee v. Darby ( 25 U. S., 206 ); Pennoyer v. McConnaughy ( 140 U. S., 1 ); Copper Queen Mining Co. v. Arizona Board ( 206 U. S., 474 ); United States v. Midwest Oil Co. ( 236 U. S., 459 ).

Application of Harry Louis Yale, Francis Alexander Sowinski and Jack Bernstein

347 F.2d 995 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 19, 1965

12, 13 and 18 (In re Rhodes, supra; Lawson v. … Bruce, 222 F.2d 273 , 42 CCPA 893; Binstead v. Littmann, 242 F.2d 766 , 44 CCPA 839; 113 USPQ 279 ; Mahan v. Doumani, 333 F.2d 896 , 51 CCPA 1516).

R. Neumann & Co. v. Overseas Shipments, Inc., Seton Leather Co. v. Overseas Shipments, Inc.

326 F.2d 786 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1964

Singer Manufacturing Co. et al. v. Birginal-Bigsby Corp., 319 F.2d 273 , 50 CCPA 1380. We think that the reasoning applied by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in two more recently decided cases is apposite here. … Gallun & Sons Corp. v. Aristocrat Leather.

Arthur Liebscher v. Wilson P. Boothroyd

258 F.2d 948 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 1, 1958

Sweetland v. Don Cole, 19 C.C.P.A.(Patents) 751, 53 F.2d 709 , 11 U.S.Pat.Q. 174; William E. Moore v. Albert E. Greene, 18 C.C.P.A. … Furthermore, we find nothing in Bocciarelli v. Huffman, supra, cited by the board, which is inconsistent with the position wTe have taken.

Application of George J. Handel, Jr

312 F.2d 943 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 13, 1963

Parker & Whipple Company v. Yale Clock Company, 123 U.S. 87 , 8 S.Ct. 38 , 31 L.Ed. 100 ; 41 OG 811; 1887 CD 584. … The cases relied on by the board, United States Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corporation, 315 U.S. 668 , 62 S.Ct. 839 , 86 L.Ed. 1105 , and Parker and Whipple Company v.

Application of Beatrice Foods Co. Application of Fairway Foods, Inc

429 F.2d 466 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 6, 1970

In so holding, the board indicated that it was following what it considered to be the ruling of the court in Coastal Chemical Co. v. … Flintkote Co. v.

Application of Sanford C. Lyons

364 F.2d 1005 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 6, 1966

For the foregoing reasons the decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. *1018 *1019 . The other references are: . … V, Clay (Kaolin), (1958) p. 69, published by the Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry. .

King Automotive, Inc. v. Speedy Muffler King, Inc.

667 F.2d 1008 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 17, 1981

See Northern Eng’r & Plastics Corp. v. Blackhawk Molding Co., 189 USPQ 734 (N.D.Ill.1975). … See, e. g., Segal v. Gordon, 467 F.2d 602, 607-08 (2d Cir. 1972); O’Connor v. GCA Corp., 332 F.Supp. 1246, 1247 (S.D.N.Y.1971). See also Crown Wallcovering Corp. v. Wall Paper Mfgrs., 188 USPQ 141 , 143-44 (TTAB 1975).

Application of Dalton

188 F.2d 170 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1951

With respect to that phase of the controversy the examiner cited the case of United Carbon Co. et al. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228 , 63 S.Ct. 165 , 87 L.Ed. 232 . … We are not in agreement with counsel for appellants in his argument that the doctrine of the United Carbon Co. case, supra, and the Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v.

In re Marriott Corp.

517 F.2d 1364 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1975

Coca-Cola Co. v. Clay, 324 F.2d 198 , 51 CCPA 777 (1963); Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. … See Aloe Creme Laboratories v. Aloe 99, Inc., 485 F.2d 1241 (CCPA 1973); Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Dunhill Tailored Clothes, Inc., 293 F.2d 685 , 49 CCPA 730 (1961).

Coral Chemical Company v. H. D. T. Company Factors, Inc.

332 F.2d 841 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 11, 1964

Applicant urges that the board erred in not giving proper weight to the decision of this court in H. D. T. Company Factors, Inc. v. Sinclair, 288 F.2d 947 , 48 CCPA 924. … United States Time Corp. v. Tennebaum, 267 F.2d 327 , 46 CCPA 895. We thus find no reversible error in the board’s decision. The decision is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 . Serial No. 79,226, filed August 10, 1959. 2 . Reg.