Case law

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.

Amanda Blackhorse, Marcus Briggs, Phillip Gover, Jillian Pappan and Courtney Tsotigh v. Pro Football, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · May 5, 2011

This proceeding mirrors prior litigation before the Board of a disparagement claim under Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), Harjo v. … Gwin v. Curry, 161 F.R.D. 70, 71 (N.D.

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.

Larry E. Belton v. Anthony J. Principi

17 Vet. App. 209 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 31, 2003

Id.; see also 38 U.S.C. § 5307; see generally Redding v. West, 13 Vet.App. 512, 514-15 (2000); Hall v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 294, 294-95 (1993). Here, Ms. … Cox v. West, 149 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming all holdings; vacating only for consideration of asserted facts occurring after issuance of this Court's opinion); see YI v.

Antonio A. Versaci v. The United States

403 F.2d 246 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 15, 1968

McGiven v. United States, 183 Ct.Cl. 920 (1968). Cf. Brozik v. … As was stated in Beckham v.

FUJIFILM SonoSite, Inc. v. Sonoscape Co., Ltd.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jun 25, 2014

In view thereof, and because the determination whether a registration has probative value is made at final hearing, the Board will not strike Exhibit E at this time. See M-Tek Inc. v. … The Board does not review evidence substantively until trial. See M-Tek Inc. v.

Russell

652 F.2d 68 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 30, 1981

Butz v. Glover Livestock Comm’n Co., 411 U.S. 182, 187, 188 (1973); Jones v. United States, 223 Ct. Cl. 138 , 617 F.2d 233 (1980). … Compare Alers v. United States, 224 Ct. Cl. 560 , 633 F.2d 559 (1980); Wynne v. United States, 220 Ct.Cl. 647 (1979); Pascal v. United States, 211 Ct. Cl. 183 , 543 F.2d 1284 (1976); Grover v. United States, 200 Ct.

Carl M. Halvorson, Inc. v. United States

461 F.2d 1337 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 16, 1972

Co. v. United States, 190 Ct. … Co. v. United States, supra, 190 Ct.

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.

201012-121238

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jul 14, 2021

See Porter v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 233, 235-36 (1993); Glover v. West, 185 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1999). … See Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334, 1345-47 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet.

Alvin L. Breen v. Walter A. Miller and Herbert G. Stine

347 F.2d 623 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 1, 1965

With regard to the matter of compliance of the experiments with the requirements of the count, the board was satisfied that the nylon and polymer V used by O’Brien, as well as the polyethylene and polymer V used by Hebeler … [Emphasis by the board.]

210518-161081

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jul 14, 2021

Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995) (en banc). … . § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). To deny a claim on the merits, the preponderance of the evidence must be against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996).

Gus Kraus, Doing Business as Condor MacHine Works v. The United States

366 F.2d 975 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 14, 1966

Corp. v. United States, 351 F.2d 972 , 169 Ct.Cl. 384 (1965); Tufano Contracting Corp. v. United States, 356 F.2d 535 , 174 Ct.Cl. 398 (1966). For the reasons hereinafter set out, we reject the decision of the Board. … Corp. v.

17-48 914

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Aug 13, 2021

Cromer v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 215, 217-18 (2005) (citing Russo v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 46, 51 (1996)). See also Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 542, 548 (1992); O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991). … See Milostan v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 250, 252 (1993) (citing Moore v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 401, 406 (1991) and O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991)).

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).

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.

Scinta v. Anderson

193 F.2d 1020 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 18, 1952

The board held that upon the facts herein it was without jurisdiction to make such substitution. In support of that holding, the board cited the case of Cohen et al. v. … The board distinguished the two cases cited by appellants in their reply brief, Briggs v. Kaisling, 53 App.D.C. 49 , 288 F. 254 and Crane v.

Richard H. Bridgman v. The United States

399 F.2d 186 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 17, 1968

(see, e. g., Oleson v. … Congress provided these boards “to correct an error or remove an injustice” ( 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (1964); see Ole-son 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.