Case law

United States Postal Service v. RPost Communication Limited

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Aug 31, 2017

Duke Univ. v. … See also Sunrider Corp. v. Raats, 83 USPQ2d 1648, 1654 (TTAB 2007) (stating that trial testimony depositions may be taken by telephone on stipulation); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Healthcare Person.

191125-45834

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jul 31, 2020

Crowe v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 238 (1994); Contant v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 116 (2003). … See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994).

H. N. Bailey & Associates v. The United States

449 F.2d 376 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 15, 1971

Thus, it failed to meet its burden of establishing in what respects the administrative record did not support the findings of the Board. Sundstrand Turbo v. … Snyder-Lynch Motors, Inc. v.

Paller v. Principi

3 Vet. App. 535 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 16, 1992

See Smith v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 178, 180 (1991), Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 171, 174 (1991). Appellant attempted to reopen her previously adjudicated case on the basis of “new and material evidence.” … This Court understands that there is medical expertise at the Board.

Anne M. Kent v. Office of Personnel Management

2015 MSPB 66 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Dec 31, 2015

See Davis v. … Burgess v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 758 F.2d 641, 643-44 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

DCX-CHOL Enterprises, Inc.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Mar 15, 2017

SPM4A4-11-V-4143 ) SPM4A6-11-C-008 l ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. … Opinion and Decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60782, Appeal ofDCX-CHOL Enterprises, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter.

American Dredging Co.

21 Cont. Cas. Fed. 84,078 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 30, 1975

“We affirm the Board on both counts. … River Construction Corp. v. United States, 159 Ct. Cl. 254, 261 (1962). In the instant case, such substantial evidence is present to support the Board’s conclusion.

190930-36270

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Apr 30, 2021

See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993). … Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Snoparsky The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided.

Arthur William Anderson and William Lawrence Truett v. Gustav Pieper, Hans Rickert and Eberhard Stein

442 F.2d 982 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 15, 1971

In our view the holdings in Teter v. Kearby [ 169 F.2d 808 ], 36 CCPA 706, 79 USPQ 65 71, 72 ), and Farrington et al. v. … Berry v. Webb, 412 F.2d 261 , 56 CCPA 1272 (1969); see also Beeber v. Grogh, 403 F.2d 743 , 56 CCPA 880 (1968); Patterson v. Hauck, 341 F.2d 131 , 52 CCPA 987 (1965).

D. J. Bielzoff Products Co. v. White Horse Distillers, Ltd.

107 F.2d 583 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1939

Ely & Walker Dry Goods Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 24 C.C.P.A.,Patents, 1244, 1247, 90 F.2d 257 . … See Gilmore Oil Co., Ltd., v. Wolverine-Empire Refining Co., 21 C.C.P.A.,Patents, 943, 69 F.2d 532 .

Continental Nut Co. v. Le Cordon Bleu

494 F.2d 1395 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 25, 1974

on More-house Manufacturing Corporation v. … See the ease of Continental Nut Company v. Cordon Bleu Limited, Cust. & Pat.App., 494 F.2d 1397 , decided this date,

Frith v. United States

156 Ct. Cl. 188 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 12, 1962

The Air Force Disability Review Board affirmed the findings of the Disability Appeal Board on July 5, 1955. … Plaintiff insists that such action was in contravention of the views expressed by this court in the cases of Proper v. United States, 139 Ct. Cl. 511 ; Betts v. United States, 145 Ct. Cl. 530 ; Eicks v.

M

8 I. & N. Dec. 24 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1958

Malaya v. Savaretti, 139 F. … Browned, supra, have become the 30 law of the case with respect to this appellant.

Strickland v. United States

61 Fed. Cl. 443 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 30, 2004

Thus, we have been instructed to decline to review promotion actions of selection boards. See, e.g., Dysart v. … (emphasis added); Stoneburner v. Secretary of the Army, 152 F.3d 485, 488 (5th Cir.1998) (“[Jludieial review of the Board’s decision is limited[.]”) (emphasis added); cf. Acquisto v.

United States v. Fragele Bros.

12 Ct. Cust. 381 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1924

In Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Co. v. United States ( 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 261 ; T. … (p. 1953); Hubble v. Renick ( 1 Ohio St. 171 ); Osborne v. Heyward (40 N. Y. App. Div. 78); Estho et al. v. Lear, adm’r ( 7 Pet. 129 ); Barber v. Coit ( 118 Fed. 272 ); Standard Computing Scale Co. v.

Atwell v. United States

1 F. Supp. 720 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 14, 1932

Following these two decisions, the Board, in considering the case of Bonwit Teller & Co. v. Commissioner, 17 B. T. … A. 1019, expressly overruled the McNeill Case, supra, and following this case the board considered the case of Julia Stow Lovejoy v. Commissioner, 18 B. T. A. 1179, and expressly overruled the Olinger Case, supra.

Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Bowles

138 F.2d 669 · Emergency Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 1943

(George V. Brown, of Chicago, Ill., on the brief), for complainant. Nathaniel L. Nathanson, Assistant General Counsel, of Washington, D. C. (George J. Burke, General Counsel, Thomas I. … Taylor v. Brown, Em.App.1943, 137 F.2d 654 .

American Drill Bushing Company v. Rockwell Manufacturing Company

342 F.2d 1019 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 8, 1965

We think the board was correct. As this court stated in Wincharger Corp. v. … Kauten-berg Co. v. Ekco Products, supra. Further, a reasonable expansion of appellee’s business to the goods of appellant should *1023 not be precluded. Magnavox Co. v.

Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. Bar-Well Foods Ltd.

568 F.2d 1342 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 22, 1977

See Plastilite Corp. v. Kassnar Imports, supra note 6; Hydra Mac, Inc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 507 F.2d 1399 , 184 USPQ 351 (Cust. & Pat.App.1975). … Appellant refers to a “leaf” design (within which the words and farm design appear), while the board refers to “oval” design with the notation that the design “is not strictly speaking an oval.” See Marcalus Mfg. Co. v.

United States v. Bauer

3 Ct. Cust. 343 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1912

Montgomery, Presiding Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This case involves the same questions considered by the court in the case of Stein v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 36 ; T. … The question presented is substantially the same as in the case of Stein v. United States (T. D. 31007 and T. D. 31525).