Case law

Holdsworth v. Goldsmith

129 F.2d 571 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1942

forth in Sachs v. … The case cited by the board, Sachs v. Ball, supra, seems to be in point. Particularly in point is certain language used by the First Assistant Commissioner of Patents in the case of Kishpaugh v. Gauthier, 357 O.

Carson v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 105 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1911

Judge Platt, in the Circuit Court, in affirming the decision of the board, said in substance that gloves exactly like those involved had been passed upon in that court in Trefousse et al. v. … In order to warrant a reversal of the board, we must be satisfied that its finding is wholly without evidence to support it or that it is clearly contrary to the weight of evidence. United States v. Riebe ( 1 Ct. Cust.

Lewisohn Importing & Trading Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 204 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1914

The Court of Customs Appeals in Wolff v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 181 ; T. D. 31217), affirming ruling of the board in G. A. 6888 (T. … United States v. Spingarn Bros. (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., —; T. D. 34002); Arthur v. Goddard ( 96 U. S., 145 ).

Application of Walter S. Kaghan, William J. Schmitt and Percy M. Kay

387 F.2d 398 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1967

See Overland Motor Company v. Packard Motor Company, 274 U.S. 417 , 47 S.Ct. 672 , 71 L.Ed. 1131 (1926) ; In re Fried, 312 F.2d 930 , 50 CCPA 954; In re Hitchings, 342 F.2d 80 , 52 CCPA 1141. … Our reasoning in this case involves not only the statutes and the Rules of Practice, which have the force of law insofar as they are consistent with the statutes see 35 U.S.C. § 6 ; Land v.

The American Novawood Corporation v. U. S. Plywood-Champion Papers, Inc., Assignee, by Merger and Change of Name of United States Plywood Corporation

426 F.2d 823 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1970

lumber products, i. e., particle board or fiber board. … Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 , 78 S.Ct. 99 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). Opposer had fair notice.

J. C. Hall Company v. Hallmark Cards, Incorporated

340 F.2d 960 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1965

American Throwing Co., Inc. v. Famous Bathrobe Co., Inc., 250 F.2d 377 , 45 CCPA 737. In Gillette Co. v. … The rationale thus employed by the board finds support in the reasoning of this court in Kautenberg Co. v.

In re Terres

150 F.2d 711 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 21, 1945

Broadwell v. Long, 36 App. D. C. 418. Section 4912 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. … (Patents) 875,108 F. (2d) 1008, 44 USPQ 300 ; General Electric Company v. Hygrade Sylvania Corporation et al., 61 USPQ 263, 288 .

Best Lock Corporation v. Schlage Lock Company

413 F.2d 1195 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 23, 1969

The board adhered to the decision on further reconsideration. The question here is whether, at long last, the board reached the right conclusion. … Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111, 119-120 , 59 S.Ct. 109 , 83 L.Ed. 73 (1938); Alan Wood Steel Co. v. Watson, 150 F.Supp. 861 , (D.D.C.1957). .

Ulmann & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 357 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1914

Martin, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The merchandise involved in this case is identical in character with that which was before the court in the case of Ulmann & Co. v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. … United States v. Baruch ( 223 U. S., 191 ). In accordance with the foregoing conclusion the court is convinced that the decision of the board should be affirmed.

Anderson, Clayton & Co. v. Krier

478 F.2d 1246 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 7, 1973

In our view, the board’s decision was clearly erroneous. … David Crystal, Inc. v. Shelburne Shirt Co., 59 CCPA 1248, 465 F.2d 926 , 175 USPQ 112 (1972). See also Contour Chair-Lounge Co. v.

Stern Bros. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 405 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1912

In many respects it is not dissimilar to the case of Bradley Martin v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 134 ; T. … More properly in point is the decision of United States v. Hermann (154 Fed.

Squires v. Corbett

560 F.2d 424 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 4, 1977

Decision on the motion was deferred until final hearing, as provided by 37 CFR 1.231(d), 5 in view of the Board of Appeals decision, although the Board of Patent Interferences was not bound thereby. Sze v. … As we noted in Nitz v.

United States v. Pew Fisheries Co.

15 Ct. Cust. 403 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1928

Attention was called to the case of United States v. Brown & Co., 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 47 , T. … It must be assumed the Congress was fully cognizant of the decision of this court in United States v. Brown, supra.

United States v. John V. Carr & Son, Inc.

495 F.2d 771 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 25, 1974

TlIE IMPORTATIONS The merchandise consists of two kinds of transistorized printed wiring board assemblies, one invoiced as a “control board” and the other-as a “protective circuit board.” … See United, States v. Superwood Corporation, 52 CCPA 57, C.A.D. 858 (1965).

Old Swiss House, Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

569 F.2d 1130 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 16, 1978

Compare De Sylva v. Ballen-tine, 351 U.S. 570 , 76 S.Ct. 974 , 100 L.Ed. 1415 (1956), with United States v. Little Lake Misere Land Co., 412 U.S. 580 , 93 S.Ct. 2389 , 37 L.Ed.2d 187 (1973). … Payne v.

Strauss & Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 203 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 12, 1911

Fensterer v. Ruhe (T. D. 31110). … United States v. Cerecedo Hermanos y Compañia ( 209 U. S., 337 -339); United States v. Falk & Bro. ( 204 U. S., 143 -152); Komada & Co. v. United States ( 215 U. S., 392 -397).

Stanadyne, Inc. v. Lins

490 F.2d 1396 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 14, 1974

The board observed that the resolution of that question is “purely a subjective one.” On the subjective resolution, we disagree with the board. … Aside from the point above mentioned that no registration shows a double-drop mark, we reiterate, as we most recently did in AMF Inc. v.

Raphael Glass Co. v. United States

20 C.C.P.A. 291 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 5, 1932

In the case of United States v. Gandolfi & Co., 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 455 , T. … -Wheeler, Elder & Elder v. United States ( 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 110 ; T. D. 38752). In that case no evidence of any kind was submitted by the importer on the trial.

Horace Day Co. v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 152 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1912

United States v. Passavant ( 169 U. S., 16 ). The determination of the appraisement board as to what place in the country of exportation is the principal market is final. Stair v. Peaslee ( 59 U. S., 521 ). … Hilton v. Merritt ( 110 U. S., 97 ); Auffmordt v. Hedden ( 137 U. S., 310 ); United States v. Passavant ( 169 U. S., 16 ); Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Babcock ( 204 U. S., 585 ); Wolff v. United States, supra.

Wing Yee Chong & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 329 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1922

D. 14047, affirmed Kwong Ching Chong v. United States ( 119 Fed. 383 ); protest of Tuck, High & Co., T. D. 14411; protest Chee Ho Tong, T. D. 24675; protest Joe Kee, T. D. 25218; G. A. 1030; protest Choy Chong Wo, T. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.