Case law

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).

Wells Cargo, Inc. v. Wells Cargo, Inc.

606 F.2d 961 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 11, 1979

Wells Cargo, Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana (Appellant) appeals from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board) in Opposition No. 58,650. Wells Cargo, Inc. v. … Because we review the decision, not the reasoning, of the board, the latter’s failure to discuss equitable estoppel is of no moment. Ileo Corp. v.

Ball v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 143 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1917

Tide Water Oil Company v. United States ( 171 U. S., 210 ), United States v. Richter ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 167 ; T. D. 31680). … This action of the board was reviewed in Circuit Court in Page et al. v.

United States v. Scheuer

4 Ct. Cust. 37 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 18, 1913

But, conceding that its sole use is that of a tickler used for amusement on carnival and other like occasions, it would come directly within the ruling of this court in Illfelder v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. … See also United States v. Strauss ( 136 Fed., 185 ) and Hamburger v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 234 ; T. D. 31956).

Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Calspan Corp.

578 F.2d 295 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 8, 1978

As earlier noted, the board misread our opinion in Massey Junior College, Inc. v. … As authority for this proposition, the board cited W. D. Byron & Sons, Inc. v. Stern Bros. Mfg. Co., 377 F.2d 1001 , 54 CCPA 1442, 153 USPQ 749 (1967), and Massey Junior College, Inc. v.

Rey-Bellet v. Engelhardt

493 F.2d 1380 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1974

See, e. g., Campbell v. Wettstein, supra; Blicke v. Treves, supra; In re Hitchings, 342 F.2d 80 , 52 CCPA 1141 (1965); In re Krimmel, 292 F.2d 948 , 48 CCPA 1116 (1961); and Archer v. … Schindler, citing Alpert v.

In re West Point-Pepperell, Inc.

468 F.2d 200 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 2, 1972

The board said it was in full agreement with the examiner that the marks so resemble each other as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive. … Columbian Steel Tank Co. v. Union Tank & Supply Co., 277 F.2d 192, 196 , 47 CCPA 898, 903 (1960).

United States v. Schumacher

3 Ct. Cust. 301 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1912

The following reported decisions are cited by the Government in support of this claim: McGibbon & Co. v. United States (T. D. 17638), McGibbon & Co. v. United States (107 Fed. Rep., 265), United States v. … Rep., 1021), Sloane v. United States (T. D. 25037), McGibbon & Co. v. United States (T. D. 25197), Robinson v. United States (T. D. 26149), and Stroheim & Romann v. United States (T. D. 26447).

Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc.

534 F.2d 915 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 13, 1976

, Wincharger Corp. v. … See the board’s opinion in Martin v. Crown Zellerbach, supra, 153 USPQ 141 , 145 (TTAB 1967). The issue of whether a portion of a mark is dominant turns on the facts of each case.

In re Wagenhorst

64 F.2d 780 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 24, 1933

In Mas v. Root, 54 F.(2d) 435, 436 , 19 C. C. P. … In Derby Oil Co. v. White Star Refining Co., 62 F.(3d) 984, 20 C. C. P.

Land v. Dreyer

155 F.2d 383 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1946

See Broadwell v. Long, supra. On December 1, 1942, the period for taking testimony in chief by appellant expired. … See Townsend v. Smith, 36 F.2d 292 , 17 C.C.P.A., Patents, 647; Rowe v. Holtz, 55 F.2d 468 , 19 C.C.P.A., Patents, 970, and authorities therein cited; Curtis et al. v. Land, 129 F.2d 549 , 29 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1118.

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.

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.

Botnen v. Dorman

179 F.2d 249 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 31, 1950

The board, citing Brydle v. … The board quotes from this court’s decision in the case of Akers v.

United States v. Von Oefele

4 Ct. Cust. 284 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1913

more favorable to him than that rendered by the board. … S., 31 ); United States v. Lies ( 170 U. S., 628 ); In re Crowly ( 50 Fed., 465 ); In re Gribbon ( 55 Fed., 874 ).

Krusi v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 168 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1911

To hold otherwise would make the board the final judge in many cases of contested classification and would in effect deprive-the importer of the right of appeal'conceded by Congress. … United States v. Strauss (136 Fed. Rep., 185). The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Beer v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 484 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1911

In Passavant v. United States ( 148 U. … The case of Muser v. Magone ( 155 U. S., 240 ) is equally if not more applicable. That case involved the appraisement of similar merchandise als'o imported from St. Gall.

United States v. Hohner

4 Ct. Cust. 122 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1913

In United States v. … D. 31577); United States v. Braun Chemical Co. (ib., 57; T. D. 31596); Spielman v. United States (ib., 61; T. D. 31626); Illfelder & Co. v. United States (ib., 299; T. D. 32040); United States v. Stirn ( 3 Ct. Cust.

Roy E. Ferree v. Harry D. Shephard, Jr. And Pearl Thelma Griffiths, Administratrix of the Estate of Norman J. Griffiths

384 F.2d 1019 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1967

Glass v. De Roo, 239 F.2d 402 , 44 CCPA 723 (1956). In Glass v. De Roo, supra, the Board of Patent Interferences had awarded priority of invention to appellees. … Bac v. Loomis, 252 F.2d 571 , 45 CCPA 807 (1958); Den Beste v. Martin, 252 F.2d 302 , 45 CCPA 798 (1958); Wirkler v. Perkins, 245 F.2d 502 , 44 CCPA 1005 (1957); Ray v. Kronmiller, 167 F.2d 518 , 35 CCPA 1085 (1948).

United States v. Suzarte

8 Ct. Cust. 99 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 14, 1917

The board held that there should be added to the amount thus ascertained the value of the coverings. … See United States v. Francklyn, supra, and United States v. Downing ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 479 ; T. D. 37052).