Case law

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.

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.

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).

Wella Corp. v. California Concept Corp.

558 F.2d 1019 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 14, 1977

Sterling Drug Inc. v. Sebring, 515 F.2d 1128 , 185 USPQ 649 (CCPA 1975). … See Clairol Inc. v. Redken Laboratories, Inc., 168 USPQ 187 (TTAB 1970).

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 .

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.

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.

Davis v. Reddy

620 F.2d 885 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 15, 1980

Horwath v. Lee, 564 F.2d 948 , 949 n. 2, 195 USPQ 701 , 703 n. 2 (CCPA 1977); Kawai v. … Schur v. Muller, 54 CCPA 1095, 1100, 372 F.2d 546, 551 , 152 USPQ 605 , 609 (1967); Anderson v. Anderson, 403 F.Supp. 834, 846 , 188 USPQ 194, 203 (D.D.C.1975).

In Re Christmann

128 F.2d 596 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1942

This appears prohibited by Palmer Pneumatic Tire Co. v. Lozier [6 Cir.], 90 F.. *599 732 and Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 [ 14 S.Ct. 310 , 38 L.Ed. 121 ] as well as by analogy to Underwood et al. v. … Cases somewhat in point are Leggett v. Avery, 101 U.S. 256 , 25 L.Ed. 865 ; American Road-Mach. Co. 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).

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.

In Re Hass

141 F.2d 122 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 7, 1944

V, page 483, as well as the references Henry, Kanao, and Schmidt. The Board of Appeals, however, in affirming the examiner’s decision, relied solely upon the references Angelí et al. and Beilstein’s “Handbuch,” 4th. … Subsequent to the examiner’s statement to the Board of Appeals, counsel for appellants filed two affidavits which are of record. One by one of the joint applicants (Henry B. Hass), and the other by Harry V.

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.

United States v. Furuya Co.

6 Ct. Cust. 207 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1915

The decision in Murphy v. Arnson, supra, was not at that time brought to our attention nor considered by the board. … , and it is in no way in conflict with the original view laid down by the board in T.

Osgood v. Ridderstrom

71 F.2d 191 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 12, 1934

Wentworth, 31 App.D.C. 150 , and that under said Gordon v. Wentworth and Mason v. … In Jardine v. Long, 19 C.C.P.A.

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.

The Magnavox Company v. Multivox Corporation of America

341 F.2d 139 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 18, 1965

As well as pointing to the fact that “Multi” means many and “Magna” means big, appellee also relies heavily on New Castle Products, Inc. v. … For the same reasons we do not find Air Products, Inc. v.

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). .

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.