Case law

Wah Shang Co. v. United States

44 C.C.P.A. 155 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1957

D. 39142; Shun Yuen Hing & Co. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 331 , T. D. 39143; and Brown & Co. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 402 , T. D. 39320. … See Wing Yee Chong & Co. v. United States ( 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 329 ; T. D. 39142).

Roger v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 443 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 27, 1914

The board overruled the protests and the importer appeals. Reliance is placed upon the cases of Schieffelin v. United States ( 84 Fed., 880 ); United States v. Badische & Co. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 528 ; T. … This case was followed by the board in T. D. 22143, in which the board distinguished the case of Schieffelin v.

Franklin Mint Corp. v. Master Manufacturing Co.

667 F.2d 1005 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 10, 1981

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. C. J. Webb, Inc., supra. … On at least one occasion, the board, in sustaining an opposition, has relied on the fact that the respective marks, as applied to identical products, were “barely visible.” American Optical Corp. v.

Carver v. United States

27 F. Supp. 608 · United States Court of Claims · May 29, 1939

Co. v. United States, 72 C. Cls. 663, 669 , we held following the cases of Ohio Steel Foundry Co. v. United States, 69 C. Cls. 158 , and Arthur Curtiss James v. United States, 69 C. … As was said in Goodenough, Trustee, v. United States, 85 C.

Reid

618 F.2d 123 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 28, 1979

The remaining issue in this case is whether the board acted arbitrarily or capriciously in failing to void the second passover after removing the OER. In Sanders v. United States, 219 Ct. … The specific standard for recovery was enunciated in Riley v.

Ladd v. United States

90 Fed. Cl. 221 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 14, 2009

Council, Inc. v. … Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155, 161 , 101 S.Ct. 446 , 66 L.Ed.2d 358 (1980); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972).

Robert S. KRAVIG and Arnold E. Johnson, Appellants, v. David J. HENDERSON, Appellee

362 F.2d 1015 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 6, 1966

As is stated in Mann v. … In Walker v.

Walter Hall v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 18, 2021

Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 455 (2004). The court expanded on this distinction in Union Pacific R. Co. v. … Mata v. Lynch, 576 U.S. 143, 149–50 (2015).

Conopco, Inc. v. Transom Symphony OpCo, LLC DBA Beauty Quest Group

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · May 23, 2022

Inc. v. Kronholm, 99 USPQ2d 1708, 1710 (TTAB 2011); TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (TBMP) §§ 536 and 801.02(a) (2021). … Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971); L’Oreal S.A. v. Marcon, 102 USPQ2d at 1438; Sealed Air Corp. v.

Linville v. Principi

15 Vet. App. 48 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 13, 2001

Linville v. West, 11 Vet.App. 60, 63-64 (1998) (en banc). The appellant appealed to the U.S. … Linville v. West, 165 F.3d 1382, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

PIERRE

14 I. & N. Dec. 467 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1973

Glavic v. Beeehie, 225 F. Supp. 24, 27 (S.D. … Neither the immigration judge nor this Board is empowered to grant parole pursuant to section 212(dX5) of the Act, Matter of Conceiro, Interim Decision No. 2183 (BIA 1973), affd Conceiro v. Marks, 360 F.

Southern Construction Company, Inc. v. The United States

364 F.2d 439 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1966

Simmons Co. v. … Co. v.

Littke v. Derwinski

1 Vet. App. 90 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 6, 1990

The ratings board found that the veteran had a twenty percent disability from multiple joint arthritis. … Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 235 , 94 S.Ct. 1055, 1074 , 39 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974); Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363 , 77 S.Ct. 1152 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1957); Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1959).

Thomas v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 10, 2021

default judgment] vacated or set aside” but is instead “questioning [whether] the action taken by the Department of Justice” was justified with respect to the Department of Justice’s “representing the Railroad Retirement Board … Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 3 1997); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Further, Mr.

Bloodhart v. Levernier

64 F.2d 367 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 12, 1933

Railway Co. v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 554 , 24 L. Ed. 1053 ; Lindley v. Shephard, 58 App. D. C. 31, 24 F.(2d) 606 , and cases cited; Lopulco Systems v. Bonnot Co. (C. C. A.) 24 F.(2d) 510 . … Permutit Co. v. Graver Corp., 284 U. S. 52, 60 , 52 S. Ct. 53 , 76 L. Ed. 163 .

Hans Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc.

340 F.2d 978 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1965

Sleeper Lounge Co. v. Bell Manufacturing Co. (9th Circuit) 253 F.2d 720 , 117 USPQ 117 .” We agree with that statement. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed.

S

9 I. & N. Dec. 548 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1962

Leibowitz v. Sehlotfeldt, 94 F.2d 263 (C.A. 7, 1938)). … decision, Matter of V—, 7-363 (1956).

15-09 318

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Mar 31, 2015

See Manlicon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999); see also Godfrey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 398, 408-410 (1995). Accordingly, the Board is required to remand these issues for issuance of a SOC. Id. … The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).

Carey v. United States

16 Ct. Cust. 382 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1928

In United States v. … Gottlieb v. Thatcher, 151 U. S. 271 ; Rock Island Nat. Bank v. Thompson, 173 *392 Ill. 593 , 50 N. E. Rep. 1089; Mercantile Trust Co. v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., 69 Fed. 193 ; Dinwiddie v.

Application of Benner

174 F.2d 938 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 12, 1949

See, with their several citations, Braren v. … See Hall v. Shimadzu, 59 F.2d 225 , 19 C.C.P.A, Patents, 1288; Lawson v. Davis, 129 F.2d 873 , 29 C.C.P.A, Patents, 1217. The instant case does not fall within that category.