Case law

In re Honeywell, Inc.

497 F.2d 1344 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1974

The solicitor has presented for our consideration a chain of authorities— Singer Manufacturing Co. v. June Manufacturing Co., 163 U.S. 169 , 16 S.Ct. 1002 , 41 L.Ed. 118 (1896); Kellogg Co. v. … Nor do we believe that the language of the opinions in Sears, Roebuck & Company v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 , 84 S.Ct. 784 , 11 L.Ed. 2d 661 (1964), and Compeo Corp. v.

Marshall B. Alpert v. Harvey L. Slatin

305 F.2d 891 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 25, 1962

Levy v. Gould, 87 F.2d 524 , 24 CCPA 910; and Archer v. Papa, 265 F.2d 954 , 46 CCPA 835. … Crane et al. v. Carlson, 29 CCPA 879, 125 F.2d 709 ; Senkus v. Johnston, 35 CCPA 1008, 166 F.2d 597 ; and Jepson v. Egly, 43 CCPA 853, 231 F.2d 947 .

In re Honeywell, Inc.

532 F.2d 180 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1976

Best Lock Corp. v. Schlage Lock Co.; 413 F.2d 1195 , 56 CCPA 1472 (1969); In re Deister Concentrator Co., 289 F.2d 496 , 48 CCPA 952 (1961). … However, the board did not consider the transparent disk to be “unclaimed.”

Interstate Brands Corp. v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc.

576 F.2d 926 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 8, 1978

HyTop Products Division v. … In Maremont Corp. v. Air Lift Co., 463 F.2d 1114 , 59 CCPA 1152, 174 USPQ 395 (1972), and in Baker’s Franchise Corp. v.

United States v. Mulhens

4 Ct. Cust. 496 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 18, 1913

Its opinion in the case at bar was rested upon the authority of Hempstead v. United States ( 168 Fed., 450 ), Woodruff v. United States ( 168 Fed., 452 ), and the case of United States v. Zinn ( 2 Ct. Cust. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

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.

Veit v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 81 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1921

See Steinhardt & Bro. v. United States ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls., 62 ; T. D. 37940). The first article is designated by items and numbers 6332, 4219, 4220. … In Cochran & Co. v. United States ( 10 Ct. Cust. Appls., 62 ; T.

Myers v. Feigelman

455 F.2d 596 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 24, 1972

Sloan v. Peterson, supra note 3. Accordingly, it is an issue which should have been considered independently by the board. … While we undoubtedly have the power to proceed on our own and decide questions not reached by the board which become relevant only because we have reversed the board on questions which they did reach, Sloan v.

Vornado, Inc. v. Breuer Electric Mfg. Co.

390 F.2d 724 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 25, 1968

In General Shoe Corp. v. Lerner Bros. Mfg. … The board, properly we think, approached the issue of likelihood of confusion on basis of use for both household and commercial purposes. J. C. Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 340 F.2d 960 , 52 CCPA 981.

Application of Mogen David Wine Corporation

328 F.2d 925 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 2, 1964

Button Corporation, 50 F.Supp. 708 (D.C.S.D.N.Y., 1943); Oneida, Ltd. v. National Silver Co., 25 N.Y.S.2d 271 (N.Y.Sup.Ct., 1940); Prince Matchabelli Inc. v. … Anhalt & Co., Inc., 40 F.Supp. 848 (D.C.S.D.N.Y., 1941), and Falcon Industries, Inc. et al. v. R. S. Herbert Co., Inc. et al., 128 F.Supp. 204 (D.C.E.D.N.Y., 1955).

Roger v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 201 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 5, 1924

it was therefore a local tax and should not have been included under the ruling in United States v. … The board was clearly right on this point, and the question was not pressed by the importers before this court. The Board of General Appraisers held that the ruling in the case of Passavant v. United States (18 Sup. Ct.

Shindelar v. Holdeman

628 F.2d 1337 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 4, 1980

Peeler v. Miller, supra note 8. … The board supported its finding of prima facie unreasonableness by citing Judge Rich’s concurring opinion in Young v. Dworkin, 489 F.2d 1277 , 180 USPQ 388 (CCPA 1974). .

Kronfeld v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 60 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 21, 1913

See Martin, jr., v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 384 ; T. D. 32982). … See Gump Co. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 137 ; T. D. 32384).

Application of Kyrides

159 F.2d 1019 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1947

The examiner, in his statement to the board upon appeal, rejected the instant appealed claims on the ground that while this court, in Kyrides v. … The Board of Appeals, upon appeal to it, affirmed the examiner’s rejection upon Andersen’s application involved in the interference in Kyrides v.

United States v. Bryant & Beinecke

10 Ct. Cust. 79 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 24, 1920

The principle upon which the case was decided was quoted from Seeberger v. Schlesinger ( 152 U. S., 587 ). … to 20 inches, but had a single colored thread running near the edge of the two sides That case would not be easily distinguishable from this except for the fact that it appeared to rest in part upon the case of Johnson v.

John O. Paivinen v. Eugene A. Sands

339 F.2d 217 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1965

Creamer v. Kirkwood, 305 F.2d 486 , 50 CCPA 715; Seeley v. Rennick, 314 F.2d 577 , 50 CCPA 1214. See generally a Revise & Caesar, Interference Law and Practice § 462 (1947). … Thus, Elmore v. Schmitt, 278 F.2d 510 , 47 CCPA 958, relied on by both the board and appellee, is not controlling.

Aelony v. Urs Arni

547 F.2d 566 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 19, 1977

Second, we stated recently in Nitz v. … We first note two published board opinions which addressed this same argument of no overlap, asserted in the same context as in the present case, viz., Dewilde v. Leigh, 191 USPQ 256 (PTO Bd.Pat.Int’f.1976); Moore v.

Knapp v. Anderson

477 F.2d 588 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 17, 1973

Paivinen v. Sands, 339 F.2d 217, 226-227 , 52 CCPA 906, 918 (1964); White v. Lemmerman, 341 F.2d 110, 113 , 52 CCPA 968, 972 (1965). … Knowles v. Tibbetts, 347 F.2d 591, 594 , 52 CCPA 1800, 1804 (1965); Koval v. Bodenschatz, 463 F.2d 442, 447 , 59 CCPA(1972).

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.

McKesson v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 459 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 17, 1923

—Burgess et al. v. Converse ( 4 Fed. Cas. 726 ); Gibb v. Washington ( 10 Fed. Cas. 288 ); United States v. Beer ( 150 Fed. 566 , affirming 142 Fed. 199 ); Ystalifera Iron Co. v. Redfield et al. ( 23 Fed. 650 ); Loeb v. … Loeb v. United States, supra.