Case law

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Sep 26, 2014

Section 2(f) permits registration of marks that, despite not qualifying for registration in light of Section 2(e), have nevertheless “become distinctive of the applicant’s goods in commerce.” … This is evident by the fact that the product packaging clearly touts the ability of the competitors’ own toothbrush replacement parts to serve as product substitutes for Applicant’s base assembly product (“Compare to Philips

Prakhin v. United States

131 Fed. Cl. 706 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 28, 2017

This statute of limitations is an explicit condition of the Government’s waiver of sovereign immunity and, as a matter of law, jurisdictional. See John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. … Ciorra’s subsequent August 26, 2016 Declaration, he appeared to partially retract and qualify his prior sworn testimony, stating: During . . . meetings [with the Sea Gate Association], the only discussion regarding

Wave Digital Assets, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 1, 2026

PWS § 2.4 (Disposal) established methods through which the contractor could dispose of cryptocurrency assets following approval. (AR 156). … If the wallets had been properly insured and audited, assets stored in them could potentially have been recognized as “Qualified” custody under the PWS.

Kevin J. Rosenberg v. Gordon H. Mansfield

22 Vet. App. 1 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 28, 2007

The appellant argues that he received no financial assistance “while participating in an ROTC program” during the 1992-1993 SY; therefore, he qualifies for the eligibility exception. Br. at 5. … Section 2107 of title 10, U.S.Code, establishes a “[fjinancial assistance program for specially selected members.”

Antarctic Support Associates v. United States

46 Fed. Cl. 145 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 28, 2000

It evaluated BR & S as “medium risk,” and commented that [...] was not qualified to perform the work, which contributed to its evaluation of BR & S as medium risk. Id. … However, “there is no requirement or implication ... that each of the factors must be present in order to establish arbitrary and capricious action by the government.”' See Prineville Sawmill Co. v.

SOSA VENTURA

25 I. & N. Dec. 391 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2010

The Act permits TPS to be granted despite an alien’s inadmissibility, but it requires a waiver of the grounds of inadmissibility in order to qualify for TPS. … It was premised upon the recognition that individuals fleeing life-threatening natural disasters, such as drought or famine, or “the existence of a generalized state of violence within a country” did not establish a basis

Hood v. United States

127 Fed. Cl. 192 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 27, 2016

Cl. 603, 607 (2009) ("[l]t is well-established that the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over tort claims. Here, Mr. … Only a "serious impediment can qualify to suspend the running of the statute . "~ In the present case, plaintiff has not alleged that defendant concealed the actions which form the basis of the breach claims, or

Soeken v. United States

47 Fed. Cl. 430 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 29, 2000

The court’s determination of whether a specific resignation or retirement qualifies as voluntary requires an examination of all the facts and circumstances. See Covington v. … Clearly circumstances permitted plaintiff more than one option, and plaintiffs written communications demonstrate the voluntariness of his decision to retire.

YANEZ

23 I. & N. Dec. 390 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2002

Equally important, Congress is not presumed to change well-established legal precedent by silence. American Hosp. Ass’n v. … Rather, in Pornes-Garcia, the Second Circuit explained clearly that the basis for the court’s reconsidered ruling in Aguirre was its interest in nationwide uniformity. Id. at 147.

Engle v. Commissioner

76 T.C. 915 · United States Tax Court · Jun 8, 1981

Goffe, J., concurring: I wholeheartedly concur, not only in the result, but also in the rationale of the majority opinion, which, contrary to the complaint in Judge Fay’s dissent, clearly explains why percentage depletion … The majority clearly holds that the intent of the statute is to allow the percentage depletion deduction for hydrocarbons “produced.” “Production” means extraction.

Lohzin & Born, Inc. v. United States

79 Cust. Ct. 34 · United States Customs Court · Aug 3, 1977

It is well established that the common meaning of a tariff term is not a question of fact, but a question of law to be decided by the court. E.g., United States v. … Items 737.07 and 737.09 were clearly intended to cover scale models built to scale of existing articles and kits or sets with construction units prefabricated to the precise scale of existing articles, whereas item 737.15

Clark v. United States

93 Fed. Cl. 756 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 13, 2010

duties,” qualify for payment under Section 206(a)(2). … The regulation provides that training is also authorized “[t]o fully qualify members in the authorized grade and position to which they are assigned” and “[t]o establish a continuing training program designed to provide the

Terry v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 31, 2019

Terry neither established a legal error nor demonstrated any arbitrary and capricious conduct by the board. … Plaintiff’s medical records from December 23, 2014 clearly state that LTC Terry was “clear to demobilize.” AR 13.d.

Dreiling v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 21, 2025

“Pro se or not, the plaintiff still has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that this Court has jurisdiction over its claims.” Rothing v. United States, 132 Fed. … But these cases are clearly talking about what the Supreme Court does when it reviews its prior decisions. A different rule applies to inferior courts such as this one.

Krause v. Commissioner

99 T.C. 132 · United States Tax Court · Jul 29, 1992

up to the lesser of $20 million or 75 percent of their expenses in qualified EOR projects. 10 C.F.R. sec. 212.78(a)(2) (1979). … The failure of many of the individuals who (on behalf of the partnerships) opined on aspects of the EOR technology license and lease agreements to expressly and clearly address the reasonableness of the assumptions on which

SALVIEJO

13 I. & N. Dec. 557 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1970

the intention must be "to return within a period relatively short, fixed by some early event." 7 See Matter of Carpio, A15848462 (BIA, 1968) (unieported), a similar case in which the alien's intent to return was clearly … from the category of being contract labor. 1° We hold, therefore, that the application for a waiver of visa re- irements under section 211 (b) of the Act was properly denied the basis that the respondent could not qualify

Bacharach Industrial Instrument Co. v. United States

2 Cust. Ct. 306 · United States Customs Court · Apr 17, 1939

You make no adjustment,” although “you sometimes have to slide this in or out,” or, in other words— You adjust the lens at times in order to clearly determine that the instrument is sighted definitely on the object whose … In this case the testimony of plaintiff's witness, a well-qualified expert, stands unrebutted.

Vargas v. United States

114 Fed. Cl. 226 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 27, 2014

The Tucker Act waives the sovereign immunity of the United States to allow a suit for money damages, United States v. … Hurtado clearly alleges in her complaint that she dealt with officials with such authority.

Schenley Industries, Inc. v. Commissioner

42 T.C. 129 · United States Tax Court · Apr 15, 1964

Since Import has established a qualifying event, we must consider the issue of whether the decline in Yat 69 sales was an “abnormality” for which a reconstruction should be made. … We have held that the mere successful operation of a business through efficient management and competent personnel does not establish the existence of a qualifying factor under (c)(1).

Joe B. Everett v. The United States

340 F.2d 352 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 22, 1965

But here neither party has undertaken to demonstrate that the Bureau was wrong, let alone clearly wrong, and we have no reason to disagree with its conclusions or to reject plaintiff’s repeated certifications that he was … Though his present incapacity would apparently prevent him from resuming work as a deputy tax collector, he has been found to be physically able and otherwise qualified to perform the sedentary tasks of an accounting clerk