Case law

Frederick H. Norton v. Lawrence E. Curtiss

433 F.2d 779 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1971

On the one hand, the board apparently agreed with the position of Curtiss that the question was not ancillary to priority under Vandenberg v. … United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 128 U.S. 315 , 32 L.Ed. 450 (1888) ; Mowry v. Whitney, 81 U.S. 434 , 20 L.Ed. 858 (1871).

W. D. Byron & Sons, Inc. v. Stein Bros. Mfg. Co.

377 F.2d 1001 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1967

As in our companion case of Steinberg Brothers, Inc. v. … Neumann & Co. v. Bon-Ton Auto Upholstery, Inc., 326 F.2d 799 , 51 CCPA 934 (1964); and R. Neumann & Co. v. Overseas Shipments, Inc., 326 F.2d 786 , 51 CCPA 946 (1964).

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.

In re Hatch

167 F.2d 1003 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 6, 1948

Brogden v. Henry B. Slater, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1240, 40 E. (2d) 988, 5 U. S. Pat. Q. 145, and Neumair v. Malocsay, 22 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1349, 77 F. (2d) 622, 25 U. S. Pat. Q. 468. … See Brand v. Thomas, 25 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1053, 96 F. (2d) 301, 37 USPQ 505 .

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. Palma

4 Ct. Cust. 140 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 6, 1913

This case is more like that of the United States v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Thompson v. Pettis

44 F.2d 420 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1930

Pengilly v. Copeland (Cust. & Pat. App.) 40 F.(2d) 995 , and cases therein cited. … Beidler v. Caps (Cust. & Pat.

Richard C. Loshbough v. Kenneth C. Allen

359 F.2d 910 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 12, 1966

the Board of Patent Interferences to amend and suspend the interference. … Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 , 83 S.Ct. 227 , 9 L.Ed. 2d 222 (1962).

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.

In Re Byck

48 F.2d 665 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1931

Co. v. Merrow Mach. Co. (C. C. A.) 93 F. 206 , C. D. 1898, page 584.” … Traitel Marble Co. v. U. T. Hungerford Brass & Copper Co. (C. C. A.) 22 F.(2d) 259 , and cases cited.

Gallagher v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 404 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 31, 1913

D. 31676); Oelrichs & Co. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 355 ; T. D. 32091); and Harris v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 5 ; T. D. 32286). … The court assumed upon the authorities cited that the presence of samples before a general appraiser or a board of three general appraisers might be waived. That doctrine was set forth by this court in Maddaus v.

United States v. Downing

6 Ct. Cust. 545 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1916

See also Tutton v. Viti ( 108 U. S., 312 ), Merritt v. Tiffany ( 132 U. S., 167 ), Benziger v. United States ( 192 U. S., 38 ), Express Co. v. United States ( 94 Fed., 643 , affirmed in 101 Fed., 111 ), United States v. … In Tutton v. Viti ( 108 U.

Izod, Ltd. v. Zip Hosiery Company, Inc.

405 F.2d 575 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 9, 1969

Co. v. … American Grease Stick Co. v. Chemplast, Inc., 341 F.2d 942 , 52 CCPA 1103. We have examined and considered the cases cited and relied on by the parties.

Palmer v. Dudzik

481 F.2d 1377 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 2, 1973

The board further answered appellants’ argument by citation of Howard v. … However, because the board cited Mason v.

Romey A. Gaiser v. Cyril S. Linder

253 F.2d 433 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 21, 1958

In Chandler v. … Kendall v. Searles, 173 F.2d 986 , 36 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1045.

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.

Senkus v. Johnston

166 F.2d 597 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 2, 1948

Patterson et al. v. Clements et al. 136 F.2d 1002 , 30 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1262; Crane et al. v. Carlson, 125 F.2d 709 , 29 C.C.P.A., Patents, 879; Collins v. Olsen, 102 F.2d 828 , 26 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1017; Israel v. … George v. Karsel, 111 F.2d 148 , 27 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1063; Crane et al. v. Carlson, supra, Lichtenwalter v. Caron, 158 F.2d 1011 , 34 C.C.P.A., Patents, 792.

James A. Patterson and Glenn K. Lissner v. Karl-Heinz Hauck

341 F.2d 131 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 18, 1965

Thurston v. … In Guinot v.

United States v. Vandegrift & Co.

2 Ct. Cust. 434 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1912

The original decision by the Board of General Appraisers was rendered June 16, 1911. A petition for rehearing was filed within the 30 days provided by law, and was denied by the board on July 6, 1911. … within thirty .days next after then decision, grant a rehearing or retrial of said case when in their opinion the ends of justice require it. *435 A similar question arose in Kingman v.