Case law

In re McGinley

660 F.2d 481 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 1, 1981

Nor does the fact that decisions of the board and the courts on the issue of likelihood of confusion are often subjective detract from their validity. See Warner-Hudnut, Inc. v. … In FCC v.

Creed v. Potts

96 F.2d 317 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 25, 1938

Norling v. Hayes, 37 App.D.C. 169 . … Kollsman v. Carbonara, 88 F.2d 966 , 24 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1149.

American Bead Co. v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 161 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1916

Wolff & Co. v. … This court has recently tersely declared that a stipulation of facts was binding upon the board and upon this court, as has ever been held by all courts. Salomon & Co. v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 5 ; T.

Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 285 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1911

McKesson v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 213 -216). … D. 11074); Levi v. United States (126 Fed. Rep., 420; T. D. 25050); in re Isaacs, Vought & Co. (T. D. 25410); in re F. Behrend (T. D. 25733); in re F. R. Philipps & Sons (T. D. 27051); United States v. Proctor (145 Fed.

Voisinet v. Coglianese

455 F.2d 1064 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1972

See Knowles v. Tibbetts, 52 CCPA 1800, 347 F.2d 591 , 146 USPQ 59 (1965); White v. Lemmerman, 52 CCPA 968, 341 F.2d 110 , 144 USPQ 409 (1965). … We conclude that the board was correct in holding the testing to be adequate.

Stein v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 36 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 18, 1910

The Board of General Appraisers found as facts: 1. … Muser v. Magone ( 155 U. S., 240 ); United States v. Passavant ( 169 U. S., 16 ); United States v. Herman (91 Fed. Rep., 116); United States v. Kenworthy (68 Fed.

Stoudt v. Guggenheim

651 F.2d 760 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 18, 1981

United States v. Silliman, 167 F.2d 607 (CA 3 1948), cert. denied, 335 U.S. 825 , 69 S.Ct. 48 , 93 L.Ed. 379 (1948); IB Moore’s Federal Practice 10.405[1], at 622-624 (2d ed. 1974). In the early case of Blackford v. … See S.E.C. v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 203 , 67 S.Ct. 1575, 1580 , 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947).

Application of Joseph D. Turlay

304 F.2d 893 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 25, 1962

having separate banks of cylinders 26 and 27 forming the legs of the V. … Hillard v. Fisher, etc., Co. (C.C.A.) 159 F. 439, 441 . * * * ” The examiner and the majority of the board specifically limited the rejection to the ground of anticipation by Moseley.

United States v. Borgfeldt

1 Ct. Cust. 370 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 27, 1911

Evidence was taken before the board on behalf of the importers and the Government. The Board of General Appraisers found these slides were for use in toy magic lanterns and sustained the protest. … In the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, Wheeler, judge, apparently decided January 16, 1900 (but which we do not find to have been published in the Federal Reporter until 1903, see Borgfeldt v.

Cook v. Dann

522 F.2d 1276 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 3, 1975

Weil v. Dann, 503 F.2d 562 (Cust. & Pat.App. 1974); Duffy v. Tegtmeyer, 489 F.2d 745 (Cust. & Pat.App.1974); Loshbough v. Allen, 404 F.2d 1400 , 56 CCPA 913 (1969). … Schenley Industries, Inc. v. E. Martinoni Co., 408 F.2d 1049 , 56 CCPA 1038 (1969). Accordingly, the petition is denied and the motion to dismiss is denied as moot.

Morway v. Bondi

203 F.2d 742 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1953

Allen v. … Scharmann v. Kassel, 179 F.2d 991 , 37 C.C.P.A., Patents, 903; Hull v. Davenport, supra. The board held that “Morway et al. were not reasonably diligent for a substantial period of weeks before and after June 14, 1945.”

Palisades Pageants, Inc. v. Miss America Pageant

442 F.2d 1385 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1971

Appeal Board, in the broad, general sense of the word “decision,” are appealable to this court any more than are all “decisions” of the Commissioner, the Patent Office Board of Appeals, or the Board of Patent Interferences … Martin v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 422 F.2d 918 , 919 n. 1, 57 CCPA 968, 969 n. 1 (1970). B.

Hugh Cecil Binstead and Henry James Stockwell v. Hans Littmann and Brüno Müller

242 F.2d 766 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 29, 1957

here considered, citing Bergstrom and Trobeck v. … It is true, as was stated in Brand v.

Standard International Corporation, Assignee, by Merger of the Bon Ami Company v. American Sponge and Chamois Company, Inc.

394 F.2d 599 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1968

Op-poser’s mark is inherently weak and where a party uses a weak mark, his competitors, may come closer to such mark without violating his rights. *600 In support of its view the board cited Fleetwood Company v. … Clinton Detergent Co. v. Proctor & Gamble Co., supra; United States Time Corp. v. Jacob Tennenbaum, 267 F.2d 327 , 46 CCPA 895 (1959). The decision of the board is reversed. Reversed. 1 .

In Re Perrigo

48 F.2d 965 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1931

Besser v. Merrilat Culvert Core Co. (C. C. A.) 243 P. 611 ; Coupe v. Boyer, 155 U. S. 565, 574 , 15 S. Ct. 199 , 39 L. Ed. 263 . … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Reed v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 95 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1914

In Dodge et al. v. … In McAllister v.

Sternfeld v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 172 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 3, 1924

In that case, upon the authority of United States v. … A. 4075), the Board of General Appraisers squarely held, upon the authority of United States v.

In re Pollack

175 F.2d 587 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1949

Co. v. Coe, 13 App. D. C. 146, 118 *1158 F. (2d) 593, wherein a similar type of rejection had been previously made. The Board of Appeals affirmed that rejection by the examiner. … Sonneborn Sons, Inc. v. Coe, 70 App. D. C. 97, 104 F. (2d) 230. Accordingly, the appeal as to claim 28 is dismissed, and the decision of the Board of Appeals as to the remainder of the appealed claims is affirmed.

Meitzner v. Mindick

549 F.2d 775 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 24, 1977

However, this issue was not raised before the board and, therefore, is not timely raised now. See Vogel v. Jones, 486 F.2d 1068 , 179 USPQ 425 (Cust. & Pat.App.1973); Triggiana v. … Moreover, the reasons of appeal set forth by Meitzner do not allege fraud as a basis of error in the board’s decision. Accordingly, the issue is not properly before us. Goodrich v.

Application of Albert Bowers and James C. Orr

359 F.2d 886 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 12, 1966

The solicitor relies on two decisions in other courts, Sterling Varnish Co. v. Louis Allis Co., 145 F.Supp. 810 (E.D.Wis. 1956), aff’d on rehearing, 149 F.Supp. 826 (1957); and Hays v. … Reynolds, 242 F.Supp. 206 (D.C.1965), aff’d, Hays v. Brenner, 357 F.2d 287 (D.C. Cir. 1966).