Case law

Stone v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 47 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 28, 1913

Barber, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The record in this case is somewhat voluminous, owing, among other things, to the fact that the evidence taken in Stone & Downer v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. … We think it can not be said that the finding of the board is wholly unsupported by or contrary to the weight of the evidence, and therefore the judgment of the Board of General-Appraisers is affirmed.

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 Palmer

451 F.2d 1100 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 16, 1971

The board rested its affirmance on Lambert alone and so that is the rejection before us. … See, e.g., United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 , 148 USPQ 479 (1966); E ibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45 (1923); In re Papesch, 50 CCPA 1084, 315 F. 2d 381 , 137 USPQ 43 (1963); Lyon v.

Edwin H. Land and Meroe M. Morse v. Francis A. Regan, Jr., Seamon A. Lincoln and Donald E. Hanson

342 F.2d 92 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 11, 1965

Relying on Sherwood v. Drewson, 29 App.D.C. 161 ; E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 120 F.Supp. 697 ; and Harding v. … Park et al., 1897 C.D. 182; Miller v. Kelley, 1901 C.D. 405; Rinehart v. Gibson, 1912 C.D. 587 [sic: 387]; Rogers v.

United States v. Lines

5 Ct. Cust. 552 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 3, 1915

In Kaskel & Kaskel et al. v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 38 ; T. … It was in that view that the court reversed the board in the case of Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher v. United States, and which view, as stated, is confirmed by substantially all the testimony in this record.

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. Telfeyan

14 Ct. Cust. 128 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 8, 1926

from the board’s judgment to this court. … United States v. Goldberg’s Sons, 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 282 ; United States v. Georgia Pulp & Paper Manufacturing Co., 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 410 ; Tower & Sons et al. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 157 ; Hedden 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.

Dwaine R. Franklin v. Robert J. Hopper

312 F.2d 949 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 13, 1963

Hopper renewed his motions, designated (1), (2) and (3) above, at final hearing before the Patent Office Board of Patent Interferences. The board, citing Josserand v. Taylor, Jr., 138 F.2d 58 , 31 CCPA 709;. … Becker, 107 F.2d 601 , 27 CCPA 746; Smith v. Foley v. Anderson v. Smitb (Commissioner of Patents), 1908 C.D. 210; and Smith and Stadum v. Klemperer (Patent Office Board of Interference Examiners), 103 USPQ 275 .

Meyer v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 15 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 17, 1923

Discussing a similar question it was said by this court in substance in United States v. Hohner ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 122 ; T. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Application of Walter L. Borkowski and John J. Van Venrooy

422 F.2d 904 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 12, 1970

Neither have appellants sought to have the board denominate the raising of this issue a new ground of rejection under Rule 196 (b). Accordingly, we are constrained to affirm the decision of the board as to claims 7-10. … Compare Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270, 271 , 37 S.Ct. 82 , 61 L.Ed. 286 (1916). 3 .

In re Bose Corp.

546 F.2d 893 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 16, 1976

This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board) affirming the refusal to register SYNCOM for loudspeaker systems for high-fidelity music reproduction. … See also In re Chicago Rawhide Manufacturing Co., 455 F.2d 563 , 59 CCPA 963, 173 USPQ 8 (1972); Mont-O-Min Sales Corp. v. Wyeth Inc., 92 F.Supp. 150 , 86 USPQ 315 (W.D.Mo.1950); Textron Inc. v.

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.

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.

Travis v. Baker

137 F.2d 109 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 6, 1943

See Goldsmith v. Mihaley, 24 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1239, 90 F. (2d) 359. … Curtis v. Lindmark, 37 App. D. C. 322; Nelson v. Wolf et al., 25 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1290, 97 F. (2d) 632.

In re Twiss

74 F.2d 124 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 24, 1934

We cannot concur with this conclusion of the board. … Pearl v. Ocean Mills, 11 Off. Gaz. 2 .

In re Griffith

86 F.2d 405 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1936

In the familiar case of Gorham Company v. White, 81 U. … In Smith v. Whitman Saddle Company, 148 U.

Marion Den Beste v. Harry Martin

252 F.2d 302 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 11, 1958

Trumbull v. Kirschbraun, 67 F.2d 974 , *305 21 C.C.P.A., Patents, 758; Blodgett and Hanson v. Richter, 79 F.2d 922 , 23 C.C.P.A., Patents, 749; Walsh v. Davidson, 101 F.2d 224 , 26 C.C.P.A., Patents, 812; Kyrides v. … As above indicated, we are of the opinion that, as stated in Trumbull v. Kirschbraun, and Blodgett v.

Koval v. Bodenschatz

463 F.2d 442 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 3, 1972

See Goodrich v. Harmsen, 58 CCPA 1144, 1153, 442 F. 2d 377, 383 , 169 USPQ 553 , 559 (1971); Hradel v. Griffith, 54 CCPA 911, 367 F. 2d 851 , 151 USPQ 580 (1966). … Feigelman, 59 CCPA 834, 455 F. 2d 596, 604 , 172 USPQ 580 , 587 (1959); Klemperer v. Price, 47 CCPA 729, 271 F. 2d 743 , 123 USPQ 539 (1959). Some, in fact, find clear expression in the board’s opinion.