Case law

Curtice-Burns, Inc. v. Northwest Sanitation Products, Inc.

530 F.2d 1396 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 11, 1976

Appellant has placed some emphasis on our decision in Hunt Foods and Industries, Inc. v. The Gerson Stewart Corp., 367 F.2d 431 , 54 CCPA 751, 151 USPQ 350 (1966). … We said in Industrial Nucleonics Corp. v.

United States Ozone Co. v. United States Ozone Co. of America

58 F.2d 1051 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 6, 1932

Brown, 1, 2, and 2 shares, respectively; and that, as Hartman and Stauffer never paid for the shares of stock for which they subscribed, no stock of the corporation was ever issued. … Macmahan Pharmacal Co. v. Denver Chemical Mfg. Co., 51 C. C. A. 302 , 113 Fed. 468 ; Mayer Fertilizer & Junk Company v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Company, 35 App. D. C. 425.

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.

Wagoner v. Barger

463 F.2d 1377 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 24, 1972

See also Martin v. Johnson, 59 CCPA 769, 454 F.2d 746 172 USPQ 391 (1972). … Neither party sought reconsideration of the board’s decision not to decide that issue, and neither party has briefed the issue or in any way sought to obtain from us a ruling on Wagoner’s motion. Compare Myers v.

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.

Hedenskoog v. Backus

48 F.2d 408 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1931

In Smith v. Brooks, 24 App. D. C. 75, 1904 C. … Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App. D.

Brand v. Thomas

96 F.2d 301 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 25, 1938

Cooper v. Downing, 45 App.D.C. 345 ; Lindley v. Shepherd, 58 App.D.C. 31 , 24 F.2d 606 ; Steenstrup v. Morton, 58 App.D.C. 343 , 30 F.2d 867 . … Co. v.

Stirn v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 42 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 19, 1924

It is claimed by counsel for both sides that the material facts here are substantially the same as those in Stirn & Co. v. United States ( 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 17 ; T. D. 38257). … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Marshall Field & Co. v. United States

45 C.C.P.A. 72 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1958

D. 30048) where the Board of General Appraisers had held pincushions of cotton and sawdust which were “crude and highly colored imitations of apples, peaches, pears, and like fruit” were not artificial fruit because they … D. 43820; United States v. H. A. Caesar & Co., 18 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 106, T. D. 44067; California Fruit Wrapping Mills (Inc.) v. United States, 19 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 381, 385; Hummel Chemical Co. v.

Kvalnes v. Wright

183 F.2d 193 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1950

“With respect to utility, Kvalnes cites the well-known case of Corona Cord Tire Co. v. … Knutson et al. v. Gallsworthy, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 304 , 164 F.2d 497 , 74 U.S.P.Q. 324 , 608 O.G. 215 . The case of Potter v.

John Sherman Smith v. Charles Emory Wehn

318 F.2d 325 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1963

Tracy v. Leslie, 14 App.D.C. 126 , 87 O.G. 891 ; Podlesak v. … In Segall v.

United States v. Gage Bros.

8 Ct. Cust. 306 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1918

Bayersdorfer & Co. v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 446 ; T. D. 33875), International Forwarding Co. v United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 455 ; T. D. 33878), and United States v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Anderson v. Natta

480 F.2d 1392 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 19, 1973

See Fang v. Hankins, 399 F.2d 262 , 55 CCPA 1468 (1968). … Brenner v. Manson was decided on March 21, 1966. *1398 2.

Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Great Plains Bag Co.

614 F.2d 757 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 24, 1980

We agree with the board on this point. … The evidence is sufficient to meet the standard set forth in Loma Linda Food Co. v.

Frank v. Hollerith

159 F.2d 774 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1947

Wheeler, Hoover, and Dirkes v. Kleinschmidt and Colman, 32 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 975, 994, 149 F. (2d) 161, 65 USPQ 407 . … We agree with the holding of the board that this position is untenable, upon the facts of this case, and we agree that the ruling in the case of Kreidel v. Parker, 25 C. C. P. A.

Silvestri v. Grant

496 F.2d 593 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 9, 1974

Heard v. Burton, 333 F.2d 239 , 51 CCPA 1502 (1964); and Langer v. Kaufmann, 59 CCPA 1261, 465 F.2d 915 (1972). … Although we would find it useful to have the board’s views on this point, we do not feel this is one of those cases in which a remand to the board is necessary. Cf. Myers v.

Application of Shao Wen Yuan

188 F.2d 377 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 3, 1951

Robinson on Patents, 1890 Edition, Vol. 1, page 230, citing the Cochrane v. … Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v.