Case law

United States v. Kalter Mercantile Co.

11 Ct. Cust. 540 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1923

In the case of Dow v. United States ( 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 249 ; T. … We think the decision of the board on both of these questions was correct and is sustained by the evidence in this case and the law as defined by this court. — Lai Ming et al. v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust.

Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company v. Thermoproof Glass Company

390 F.2d 770 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 15, 1968

We have previously considered the likelihood of confusion between Libbey-Owens-Ford’s THERMOPANE and a mark quite similar to appellee’s, namely, Therm-O-Lite, Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass *771 Co. v. … The decision of the board is reversed. Reversed. WORLEY, C. J., concurs in the result. KIRKPATRICK, J., took no part in the decision of this case. 1 .

In Re Marden

47 F.2d 958 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1931

Attention is also called to the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit in General Electric Co. v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

United States v. Saunders

8 Ct. Cust. 82 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 23, 1917

in connection with the precise issue presented to the board by the Government at the hearing before the board. … See Seeberger v. Castro ( 153 U. S., 32 ). The decision of the board is affirmed as to protests Nos. 721812 and 727149 and reversed as to No. 751473, and the protest in each of the cases is sustained. Modified.

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 .

United States v. Holland-American Trading Co.

4 Ct. Cust. 336 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1913

Free acid as oleic. 22.13 Volatile petroleum. 5.37 Unsaponifiable oil (petroleum). 12.15 Saponifiable fat. 10. 32 Silica. 40. 25 Alumina and iron oxide. 5.25 Moisture. 2. 82 Lime, etc. 1.71 United States v. … D. 32536) and Bartley Brothers v. United States (ib., 363) seem to preclude the correctness of the collector’s classification and are referred to for authority and reasoning on that subject.

Jacobs v. International Multifoods Corp.

668 F.2d 1234 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 21, 1982

(Duet v. Duvet); In re Ferrero, 479 F.2d 1395, 1397 , 178 USPQ 167, 168 (CCPA 1973) (Tic Tac Toe v. Tic Tac); Dan River Mills, Inc. v. … The decision of the board is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Compare James Burrough Ltd. v. Sign of the Beefeater, Inc., 540 F.2d 266 , 192 USPQ 555 (7th Cir. 1976), and Beef/Eater Restaurants, Inc. v.

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.

Loftin v. Smith

126 F.2d 514 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 23, 1942

The Examiner of Interferences on this phase of the law cited Funk v. Haines and Matteson, 20 App. D. C. 285. … There is no contention here that the Smith application related to an abandoned experiment nor is' the rule akin to the doctrine of estoppel applicable in Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App. D. C. 86, urged.

In re Bradley

600 F.2d 807 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 5, 1979

The Rejection The examiner rejected the appealed claims on the authority of Gottschalk v. … Under the ruling in Gottschalk v.

William E. Phillips v. Edward E. Lynch and John J. Larew

367 F.2d 601 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 27, 1966

There is general agreement as to the applicable rule of law as expressed by this court in Martin v. … And in Deibel v. Heise, 46 F.2d 570 , 18 CCPA 907 (1931): Had appellant desired to limit his claims to a particular kind or type of kraft paper he might have done so.

Farrington v. Mikeska

155 F.2d 412 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1946

Thompson v. Dicke, 110 F.2d 98 , 27 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 931. … The decisions in the cases of Schweyer v. Thomas, 68 F.2d 953 , 21 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 859; Garand v. Pedersen, 76 F.2d 407 , 22 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1161; and Hogue v. Cowling et al., 101 F.2d 541 , 26 C.C.P.A.

Application of Walter D. Bernhart and William A. Fetter

417 F.2d 1395 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 20, 1969

See, e. g., Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 303 U.S. 545 , 58 S.Ct. 662 , 82 L.Ed. 1008 (1938). Why an applicant should not be so entitled is not clear. … As to claims 8, 13 and 18 the decision of the board is affirmed; as to claims 19-21 the decision of the board is reversed. Modified. 1 .

Manny v. Garlick

135 F.2d 757 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 5, 1943

In the last cited case the court referred to the case of Lemp v. Randall, 33 App.D.C. 430 as follows: “The Assistant Commissioner cites our decision in Lemp v. … In this court the question of diligence in filing a sole application to take the place of a joint application in interference was considered in the case of Crane v.

United States v. Borgfeldt

1 Ct. Cust. 255 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1911

Seeberger v. Schlesinger ( 152 U. S., 581 ). … And again in Cadwalader v. Zeh ( 151 U.

In re Griffin Pollution Control Corp.

517 F.2d 1356 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1975

Restatement of Torts § 718, comment b at 573 (1938); Heintz v. American Tire Machinery Co., 54 USPQ 328 , 329 (Comm’r Pat.1942). … The decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is affirmed. Affirmed.

Gallagher v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 38 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1926

Mead v. United States, 81 Fed. 684 ; Wilkins v. United States, 96 Fed. 837 ; Gump v. United States, 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 137 . … American Sugar Refining Co. v. United States, 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 69 ; United States v. Lozano, Son & Co., 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 281 ; Lunham v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 220 ; Renick <& Ford v.

United States v. Pacific Trading Co.

14 Ct. Cust. 131 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 8, 1926

The appellee’s protest, claiming the merchandise to be dutiable as onions, under paragraph 768, was sustained by the Board of General Appraisers. The United States has appealed to this court. … The issues in this case are almost identical with the issues in the case of United States v. La Manna, Azema & Farnan et al., 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 123 , T.

Duffy v. Tegtmeyer

489 F.2d 745 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 10, 1974

In Losh-bough v. … That is likely to be the case here when the motion, which the chairman of the board, acting for the Commissioner, deferred to final hearing, is decided by the board. This question has been deemed ancillary to priority.

Myrurgia, S. A. v. Comptoir De La Parfumerie, S. A. Ancienne Maison Tschanz

441 F.2d 673 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 13, 1971

Compare, General Time Corp. v. Dunbar Furniture Corp., 56 CCPA 121, 402 F. 2d 806 , 159 USPQ 536 (1968). … See, Izod, Ltd. v. Zip Hosiery Co., Inc., 56 CCPA 812, 405 F. 2d 515 , 160 USPQ 202 (1968). For the reasons stated herein the decision of the board is reversed.