Case law

In re Siu

222 F.2d 267 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 22, 1955

See Underwood v. Gerber, 1893 C. D. 340; 630 O. G. 1063 ; 149 U. S. 224 . … We therefore affirm the board’s decision without further and unnecessary comment. § 253.

Esposito v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 334 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1924

—United States v. Riebe ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 19 ; T. D. 30776). … The j udgmént of the board is therefore affirmed.

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.

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.

Harrison v. Cadwell

39 F.2d 704 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1930

Hunter v. Stikeman, 13 App. D. C. 214, 226; Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App. D. C. 86, 92; Lindemeyr v. Hoffman, 18 App. D. C. 1, 5; Roe v. Hanson, 19 App. D. … The board found that it was well vulcanized and cited Nikaido v. Bruni, supra. Bradley supported the testimony of Coe.

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.

Steinhardt & Bro. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 361 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1911

See Wanamaker v. Cooper (69 Fed. Rep., 465), United States v. Mathews (78 Fed. Rep., 345), Guthman v. United States (148 Fed. Rep., 332; T. D. 27501), Dieckerhoff v. United States (151 Fed. Rep., 957; T. … For the reasons herein stated weo think the Board of General Appraisers erred, and the decision of the board should be reversed.

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.

Josef Schmitt and Jacques J. Panouse v. John C. Babcock and Milton E. Herr

377 F.2d 994 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1967

Appellants argue the board's decision herein concerning section 119 is directly opposite to that in Reichstein v. … Myers, 1914 C.D. 74; Michelin v. Hayes Wheel Co., 300 F. 458 (E.D.Mich.1924); Ex parte Mattlet, 1926 C.D. 62; De Jahn v. Gaus, 1928 C.D. 22; Joseph Bancroft & Sons Co. v.

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 .

Coast v. Dubbs

88 F.2d 734 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 22, 1937

which supports his right to make this feature of the counts even though there is no description thereof. * * * The authorities cited by the board in this connection are: Briggs et al. v. … Among: the authorities cited as supporting appellant’s contention upon this point are Cooper v. Downing, 45 App. D. C. 345, Lindley v. Shepherd, 58 App. D. C. 31, 24 F. (2d) 606, and Steenstrup v. Mor ton, 58 App. D.

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.

Langevin v. Nicolson

110 F.2d 687 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1940

Symington Company v. National Malleable Castings Company et al., 250 U. S. 383 ; Diamond, Patent Co. v. S.E. Carr Co., 217 Fed. 400 ; and Universal Rim Co. v. Firestone Steel Products Co. et al., 289 Fed. 884 . … The same court, speaking in the case of Union Trust Co. v.

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.

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.