Case law

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

United States v. Borgfeldt

12 Ct. Cust. 324 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1924

—Scaramelli v. United States ( 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 134 ; T. D. 40056). … The object of the law requiring such a statement is well expressed by Barber, Judge, in Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Co. v.

Thurlow Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 275 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 9, 1924

In the case of Gallagher & Ascher v. United States (T. D. 39677; G. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Applegarth v. Wilson

156 F.2d 373 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 9, 1946

Chandler v. Mock, 32 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1183, 150 F. (2d) 563, 66 USPQ 209 ; Lustig v. Legat, 33 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 991, 154 F. (2d) 680, 69 USPQ 345 . … Beall v. Ormsby, 33 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 959, 154 F. (2d) 663, 69 USPQ 314 .

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.

Fort Howard Paper Company v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation

390 F.2d 1015 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 14, 1968

Compare Fort Howard Paper Co. v. … The board relied on the following cases: Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 49 F.2d 842 , 18 CCPA 1386; California Spray-Chemical Corp. v. Ansbacher Siegle Corp., 55 USPQ 298 (Comm’r); Western Stove Co. v.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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). .

United States v. Rolls-Royce of America (Inc.)

13 Ct. Cust. 259 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 21, 1925

This was the conclusion reached in McKesson & Robbins v. … In United States v. Robinson & Co., 12 Ct. Cust.

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.