Case law

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.

Application of Bremner

182 F.2d 216 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 9, 1950

Co. v. Satler, D.C., 21 F.2d 630 ; Smokador Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Tubular Products Co., 2 Cir., 31 F. 2d 255 ; and In re Holmes, 63 F.2d 642 , 20 C.C.P.A., Patents, 899. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed.

John J. Goodrich v. Arnold C. Harmsen and Burke P. Lokey, Burke P. Lokey v. Arnold C. Harmsen and John J. Goodrich

442 F.2d 377 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1971

The Board erred in holding that Lokey conceived the invention of the counts at any date prior to January 29, 1962. Additionally, Goodrich cites Kratz v. … Mastoras, 257 U.S. 27 , 42 S.Ct. 20 , 66 L.Ed. 112 (1921); Tansel v. Higonnet, 215 F.2d 457 , 42 CCPA 732 (1954); and Creamer v. Kirkwood, 305 F.2d 486 , 50 CCPA 715 (1962). We agree with the board.

Phillips Petroleum Company v. C. J. Webb, Inc., by Change of Name From Chas. J. Webb Sons Co., Inc., D.B.A. Corrosion Reaction Consultants

442 F.2d 1376 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1971

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Chas. J. Webb Sons Co., 150 USPQ 710 , 712 (TTAB 1966). … See: Rockwood Chocolate Co., Inc. v. Hoffman Candy Company, 54 CCPA 1061, 372 F.2d 552 , 152 USPQ 599 (1967).

In re Taner

681 F.2d 787 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1982

See Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 , 98 S.Ct. 2522 , 57 L.Ed.2d 451 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 , 93 S.Ct. 253 , 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1973). … We concluded that Gottschalk v.

Application of Walter Lorenz and Richard Wegler

305 F.2d 875 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 25, 1962

The board affirmed. … Hardtmuth, Inc. v. Fabrique Suisse De Crayons Caran D’Ache S.A., 287 F.2d 599 , 48 CCPA 873. 3 . U. S.

California Packing Corp. v. Sun-Maid Raisin Growers of California

64 F.2d 370 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1933

The case of Hamilton, Brown Shoe Co. v. Sam B. Wolf Sons Co., 39 F.(2d) 272 , 17 C. C. P. … While the particular question of the rights and obligations of an assignee of a trade-mark was not involved in the ease of Hamilton, Brown Shoe Co. v. Sam B.

In re Water Gremlin Co.

635 F.2d 841 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 26, 1980

In Golden Gate Salami Co. v. … Houston Ice Co., 250 U.S. 28 , 39 S.Ct. 401 , 63 L.Ed. 822 (1919); Price Food Co. v. Good Foods, Inc., 400 F.2d 662 (CA 6 1968); Venn v. Goedert, 319 F.2d 812 (CA 8 1963); Hygienic Specialties Co. v. H. G.

Mengue v. Fuerst

86 F.2d 436 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1936

Foster v. Antisdel, 14 App. D. C. 552; Prindle v. Brown, 24 App. D. C. 114; Luellen v. Claussen, 43 App. D. C. 444; Beidler v. Capps, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 703, 36 F. (21) 122; Cooper v. Hubbell, 19 C. C. P. A. … We are of opinion that the Board of Appeals did not err, on this record, in awarding priority to the party Fuerst. The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. LeNROOt, J., concurs in the conclusion.

Robert C. Switzer and Richard A. Ward v. Loy W. Sockman and Elliot W. Brady

333 F.2d 935 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 16, 1964

■Jr it í The majority of the board stated that the Rubenstein v. … In its decision after final hearing the board referred to that portion of Hen-ning v.

Vogel v. Jones

486 F.2d 1068 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 11, 1973

See, for example, Steel v. Myers, 205 O.G. 1021 , 1914 C. D. 74 and De Jahn v. Gaus, 57 App. D. C. 341, 23 F.2d 762 (1927). … See Wagoner v. Barger, 463 F.2d 1377 , 59 CCPA 1213 (1972).

United States v. Furuya

11 Ct. Cust. 551 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 11, 1923

It has been held by this court that where testimony is conflicting before the board it is the duty of this court to weigh it. —United States v. Riebe (1 Ct. Cust. Appls 19; T. D. 30776); United States v. … Oberle and United States v. Illfelder ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 527 ; T. D. 31545).

Application of John Bulina (Deceased) and Jack T. Brown

362 F.2d 555 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 23, 1966

In Graham v. … Clearly, the * * * advance which the Board would attribute to Oochardt et al, was not within the contemplation of the inventors. 4 . See text, supra. 5 . United States 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).

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.

Massey Junior College, Inc. v. Fashion Institute of Technology

492 F.2d 1399 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 21, 1974

Also, all but one of the cited cases involved only word marks (“Twin Flo” v. “Duo Flo,” “DATA” v. “DATA-SPEED,” “Stor-Mor” v. “Stormer,” and “AO” v. … The decision of the board is reversed. Reversed. . 15 U.S.C. § 1057 (b). . J. C. Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 340 F.2d 960 , 52 CCPA 981 (1965). . Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v.

United States v. Overton

6 Ct. Cust. 248 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1915

So in Stratton v. … More precisely in point is the case of Knauth v. United States ( 155 Fed., 144 ; T.

In re Zahn

617 F.2d 261 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1980

Ripley v. [Elson] Glass Co., 49 F. 927 . [Emphasis ours. Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co., 148 U.S. 674, 679 , 13 S.Ct. 768, 770 , 37 L.Ed. 606 (1893).] … Co. v.

Application of Oliver Kenneth Kelley

305 F.2d 909 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 2, 1962

In Kreidel v. … We note also the Board of Appeals decision of Ex parte Eugene V.

Birmingham v. Randall

171 F.2d 957 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1948

See Steenstrup v. Heath, 25 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 981, 95 F. (2d) 514, 37 USPQ 205 ; McBride v. Teeple, Jr., 27 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 961, 109 F. (2d) 789, 44 USPQ 523 ; Buffington et al. v. Blair et al., 28 C. C. P. A. … See Lindemeyr v. Hoffman, 18 App. D. C. 1, 1901 C. D. 353, and Gallagher v. Hien, 25 App. D. C. 77, 1905 C. D. 624.