Case law

James E. Carney v. Department of Veterans Affairs

2014 MSPB 62 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Aug 6, 2014

Mason v. Department 3 Although 5 U.S.C. § 1221(a) limits Board appeal rights under 5 U.S.C. … Id. ¶8 In Ormond v.

Hassay v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 27, 2025

The Board reasoned that Dr. Foote’s opinion was not supported by objective evidence. Id. V. … Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1983)); see also Chappell v.

H.J. Heinz Co. & Subsidiaries v. United States

76 Fed. Cl. 570 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 25, 2007

Brown, “The Growing ‘Common Law1 of Taxation,” 34 S. Cal. L.Rev. 235 (1961). … See Brown v.

P. A. B. Produits et Appareils de Beaute v. Satinine Societa in Nome Collettivo di S.A. e. M. Usellini

570 F.2d 328 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 16, 1978

See Dudley v. South Jersey Metal, Inc., 555 F.2d 96 (3d Cir. 1977); Sadowski v. Bombardier Ltd., 539 F.2d 615 (7th Cir. 1976); Havenfield Corp. v. … See Dudley v. South Jersey Metal, Inc., supra; Sadow-ski v. Bombardier Ltd., supra; Havenfield Corp. v. H & R Block, Inc., supra. Petitioner had the burden of establishing nonuse for two consecutive years.

12-28 608

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Oct 30, 2015

See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38-39 (1993). In light of the Veteran's action, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. … Hindin Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs

Liles Construction Co. v. United States

455 F.2d 527 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 18, 1972

Co. v. United States, 176 Ct. … Co. v. United States, 187 Ct.

Carlin v. United States

100 F. Supp. 451 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 2, 1951

This board recommended that plaintiff appear before a retiring board. … Lemly v. United States, 75 F.Supp. 248 , 109 Ct.Cl. 760, 763 ; Cook v. United States, 101 Ct.Cl. 782 ; Blackett v. United States, 81 Ct.Cl. 884 ; Rudd v. United States, 71 Ct.Cl. 432 .

Fairfield Scientific Corp. v. United States

611 F.2d 854 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 12, 1979

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971); Pascal v. United States, 211 Ct. Cl. 183, 191 , 543 F.2d 1284, 1289 (1976); Reil v. United States, 197 Ct. Cl. 542, 548 , 456 F.2d 777, 780 (1972); N. Fiorito Co. v. … Almost 40 years ago, in Alford v.

Wheeler v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 110 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 2, 1921

court (United States v. … Mexican Hardwood Lumber Co. v.

Joseph Brown v. Department of Veterans Affairs

Merit Systems Protection Board · Nov 8, 2016

v. … See Young v.

Lipp v. United States

157 Ct. Cl. 197 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 4, 1962

Mistretta v. United States, 128 Ct. Cl. 41 ; MacFarlane v. United States, 134 Ct. Cl. 755 ; Cuiffo v. United States, 131 Ct. Cl. 60 ; Schmeichel v. United States, 134 Ct. Cl. 809 ; Barker v. United States, 135 Ct. … Levine v. United States, 133 Ct. Cl. 774 ; Bosnick v. United States, 132 Ct. Cl. 1 ; Girault v. United States, supra; Duff v. United States, 133 Ct. Cl. 161 ; Odell v. United States, 134 Ct. Cl. 634 .

The Board of Trustees of The University of Alabama and Mr. Paul W. Bryant Jr. v. William Pitts Jr. and Christopher Blackburn

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jul 23, 2013

Our primary reviewing court and the Board look to Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. … The function of the Board is to determine whether there is a right to secure or maintain a registration; the Board can do nothing to prevent parties from using a mark in a certain manner. Person’s Co. v.

Bruno v. United States

556 F.2d 1104 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 15, 1977

In Friedman v. United States, 159 Ct.Cl. 1 , 310 F.2d 381 (1962), cert. denied sub nom. Lipp v. … Gordon v. United States, 134 Ct.Cl. 840, 844 , 140 F.Supp. 263, 265 (1956). *388 Yet plaintiffs final Physical Evaluation Board report clearly states: 1.

Witco Chemical Company, Inc. v. Whitfield Chemical Company, Inc.

418 F.2d 1403 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 18, 1969

We agree with the board’s conclusions. See Polaroid Corp. v. Richard Mfg. Co., 52 CCPA 978, 341 F.2d 150 (1965). … The present board decision antedates these decisions. Witco Chemical Co. v. The Chemische Werke Witten G.M.B.H., Opp. No. 42,425, 157 USPQ 644 ; Opp. No. 42,421, 157 USPQ 647 ; Opp. No. 45,003, 158 USPQ 157 .

United States v. National Aniline & Chemical Co.

3 Ct. Cust. 10 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 17, 1912

In United States v. Hempstead & Son (153 Fed. … White & Co. v. United States (154 Fed.

Dan D. Diamond v. The United States

344 F.2d 703 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 16, 1965

In Friedman v. … The following cases are examples of those in which (1) a Correction Board was the first competent hoard to act and (2) suit was brought within 6 years of the action of the Correction Board: Harper v.

Jeun v. United States

128 Fed. Cl. 203 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 8, 2016

11 board . . . .” … a disability board prior to discharge.”

Estudi Moline Dissey, S.L. v. BioUrn Incorporated

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jul 10, 2017

v. BioUrn Incorporated Wendy Boldt Cohen, Interlocutory Attorney: Estudi Moline Dissey, S.L. … See Trademark Rule 2.120(f)(1); Hot Tamale Mama…and More, LLC v. SF Invs., Inc., 110 USPQ2d 1080 (TTAB 2014). The Board now turns to the merits of the motion to compel.

An Giang Fisheries Import & Export Joint Stock Co. v. United States

284 F. Supp. 3d 1350 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 19, 2018

See Advanced Technology & Materials Co. v. … Co. v.

Jim Dandy Co. ex rel. Western Grain Co. v. Martha White Foods, Inc.

458 F.2d 1397 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 11, 1972

Appellant cites the Wood and Lever cases relied on by the board, as well as. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp. v. General Instrument Corp., 152 USPQ 821 (TTAB 1967), in support of its position. … See Macaulay v. Malt-Diastase, 55 App. D.C. 277 , 4 F. 2d 945 (D.C. Cir. 1925); Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Sears, Roebuch & Co., 18 CCPA 1386, 49 F. 2d 842 , 9 USPQ 524 (1931); Alfred Electronics v.