Case law

United States v. Bennett & Loewenthal

2 Ct. Cust. 249 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 16, 1911

The board cites the following casos in support of its conclusion: In re Courtin (T. D. 23557); Carnes v. Maxwell (3 Blatch., 420; 5 Fed. Cases, 90); Schmeider v. Barney (6 Fed. Rep., 150); Howland v. … The suggestion made in the decision of the Board of General Appraisers in United States v.

United States v. Field

14 Ct. Cust. 376 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 24, 1927

The board held that they were classifiable as books under paragraph 329, and it is apparently upon the authority of this case that the decision below rests. In Schneider v. United States, T. D. 40390, G. … Lloyd v. United States, 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 280 .

In re Carleton

599 F.2d 1021 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 7, 1979

As the Second Circuit said in Scher-ing Corp. v. … The Solicitor’s brief states that “the issue is whether the decision of the Board of Appeals was clearly erroneous.” However, “obviousness is a legal conclusion based on factual evidence, Graham v.

Crown Radio Corp. v. Soundscriber Corp.

506 F.2d 1392 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 26, 1974

As we stated in General Electric Company Limited v. … Stanadyne, Inc. v. Lins, 490 F.2d 1396 (CCPA 1974). In Miles Laboratories, Inc. v.

Coca-cola Co. v. Seven-up Co.

497 F.2d 1351 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1974

The language employed in describing the mark involved in Vita-Var Corp. v. … Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., 165 USPQ 644 (TTAB 1970). .

Alfred Electronics v. Alford Manufacturing Company

333 F.2d 912 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 9, 1964

In connection with that point, the board cited its previous decision in Lytle Engineering & Mfg. Co., 125 U.S.P.Q. 308 . Appellant questions that ruling, relying particularly on Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Minn. … Midwest Homes, Inc. v. Midwest Houses, Inc., 120 U.S.P.Q. 406 (Comr., 1959) ; Universal Overall Company v. Stonecutter Mills Corporation, 121 U.S.P.Q. 605 (Comr., 1959) ; and Zell Products Corporation v.

In Re FISCHER

58 F.2d 1058 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1932

He argues that the said application discloses the feature heretofore referred to, of two sheets with their adhesive surfaces in contact, and that he is, under the rule of Chapman v. Wintroath, 252 U. S. 126 , 40 S. … D. 32, in whjeh the office announced the rule, based upon Field v. Colman, 40 App. D.

Marshall v. Ledwinka

67 F.2d 495 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1933

McCabe v. Cramblet, 20 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1220, 65 F. (2d) 459; Deibel v. Heise & Schumacher, 18 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 907, 46 F. (2d) 570 ; Brogden v. Slater, 17 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1240, 40 F. (2d) 988. … Oldroyd v. Morgan, 19 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1111, 57 F. (2d) 358; Andrews v. Nilson, 27 App.D.C. 451 ; Ryder v.

Schweyer v. Thomas

68 F.2d 953 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 26, 1934

Isom v. Dubbs, 58 App. D. C. 25, 24 F.(2d) 467 . In the case of Dreyfus v. Lilienfeld, 49 F.(2d) 1062 , 18 C. C. P. … Petersen v. Thomas, 56 App. D. C. 113, 10 F.(2d) 908 .

Jenks v. Knight

90 F.2d 654 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 7, 1937

Nevertheless, we there upon that record affirmed the decision of the Board in awarding priority to Green. The subject-matter of the Phelan v. … The Board was persuaded that its decision was controlled for the most part by the rule laid down in Chapman v. Beede, 54 App.D.C. 209 , 296 F. 956, 958 , which was decided subsequently to Chapman and Chapman v.

Shallus Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 87 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 11, 1925

In United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 412 , T. … In this connection see also United States v. Dieckerhoff, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 384 , T. D. 33796; United States v. Wolff & Co., 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 418, T. D. 34943; and Morris, Mann & Reilly (Inc.) v.

Midland International Corporation v. Midland Cooperatives, Inc.

434 F.2d 1399 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 17, 1970

In short, it is contended that the board *1403 reached the right end by the wrong route. Appellee cites, in support of its contention, the ease of J. E. Riley Inv. Co. v. … Midland Cooperatives, Inc. v. Midland International Corp., No. 15184 — 1. 3 . Opposition No. 44,364, serial No. 156,089, filed October 29, 1962. 4 . Midland Cooperatives, Inc. v. Midland International Corp., supra.

Application of Everett F. Gustafson

331 F.2d 905 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1964

The term appears to have got into the law about 1873 in Hailes v. Van Wormer, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 353 . 22 L.Ed. 241 . … “For instance, in Reckendorfer v.

United States v. Rice Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 165 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1919

D. 22265); United States v. Richard, on natural grass, sun-bleached, used for emblems ( 99 Fed., 262 ); acquiescence of Department (T. D. 21984); Bayersdorfer & Co. v. … D. 23665); Simpson v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 222 ; T. D. 31952); United States v. Wallace ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 142 ; T. D. 33413); Hartranft v. Wiegmann ( 121 U. S., 609 ).

American Burtonizing Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 652 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 27, 1926

Three decisions Charlton v. Kelly, 2 Alaska 332, 534 , State v. Loveless, 17 Neb. 424 , 426, and Coyle v. Commonwealth, 104 Pa. … Ringk & Co. v. United States, 47 Treas. Dec. 264 , is also relied upon by appellant.

Nevin v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 423 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 18, 1914

United States v. Hahn ( 91 Fed., 755 ), Herrman v. Arthur’s Executors ( 127 U. S., 363 ). … Whether or not there was a similitude in use between bottle metal caps and these viscose caps was a question of fact for the board to determine, its conclusion being a finding of fact. Greenleaf v. Goodrich ( 101 U.

In re Voss

557 F.2d 812 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 23, 1977

Corning Glass Works v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corp., supra. … See Crome v. Morrogh, 239 F.2d 390 , 44 CCPA 704, 112 USPQ 49 (1956).

Dalton H. Pritchard and Alfred C. Schroeder v. Bernard D. Loughlin

360 F.2d 250 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 28, 1966

As authority, the Board cited Loukomsky v. Gerlich, 264 F.2d 907 , 46 CCPA 805. … Creed et al. v. Potts, 96 F.2d 317 , 25 CCPA 1084; Haglund v. Potts, 109 F. 2d 816 , 27 CCPA 981; Belden et al. v. Klingele, 112 F.2d 805 , 27 CCPA 1232; McCabe et al. v. Scheele, 112 F. 2d 800 , 27 CCPA 1265; Mantz v.

Application of Calgon Corporation

435 F.2d 596 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 7, 1971

The board did not agree with appellant, nor do we. As the board eorectly pointed out, “the question of priority of use is not germane to applicant’s right to register” in this ex parte proceeding. … See, by way of analogy, Erlen Products Co. v. The Toni Co., 251 F.2d 625 , 45 CCPA 769 (1958); Cosmetically Yours, Inc. v. Clairol Inc., 424 F.2d 1385 , 57 CCPA 1071 (1970), and cases cited therein.

Taylor v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 498 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1913

The importers at the hearing before the board offered the deposition of Mr. … In Magone v. Heller ( 150 U. S., 570 ), discussed and reaffirmed in Magone v. Weiderer ( 159 U.