Case law

Estate of Mueller v. Comm'r

101 T.C. 551 · United States Tax Court · Dec 13, 1993

(Part 2), 315, 322, or the Board’s opinion in Barry v. Commissioner, supra. … Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., supra at 419. The taxpayer appealed the Board’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which reversed. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co. v.

Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 328 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 2, 1916

In Krusi v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 168 -169; T. … See also Knauth v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 178 ; T. D. 31216), United States v. Brewing Co. ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 362 ; T. D. 31454), and United States v. Strauss Bros. & Co. ( 136 Fed., 185 ). In Shallus v.

Johnson & Johnson and RoC International S.A.R.L. v. Obschestvo s ogranitchennoy; otvetstvennostiu "WDS"

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jun 16, 2010

P. 33(d) must comply with three specific conditions, as the Board explained in No Fear, Inc. v. Rule, 54 USPQ2d 1551 (TTAB 2000), and Jain v. Ramparts, Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1429 (TTAB 1998). … See Jain v.

Northrop Grumman Corp. v. United States

75 Fed. Cl. 761 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 28, 2007

See Hesse v. … See United States v.

Application of United Biscuit Company of America

404 F.2d 998 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1968

Hood & Sons, Inc. v. … by the board.

Chemithon Corp. v. United States

30 Cont. Cas. Fed. 70,908 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 15, 1983

V 1981), which provides for trial de novo in this court. … Federal *758 Electronic Corp. v. United States, 202 Ct.Cl. 1028, 1039 , 486 F.2d 1377, 1383 (1973), citing Astro-Space Laboratories, Inc. v.

Litton Systems, Inc. v. The United States

449 F.2d 392 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 15, 1971

United States v. Hanna Nickel Smelting Co., 253 F.Supp. 784 (D.Or.1966), aff’d on an alternate ground, 400 F.2d 944 (9th Cir. 1968). See also Elastic Stop Nut Corporation of America v. … United States Steel Corp. v.

Wales v. United States

145 Ct. Cl. 113 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 11, 1959

It appears that said Board again found plaintiff fit for military duty as of January 20, 1950, in accordance with the conclusion of the Physical Evaluation Board. After carefully considering the former case of Wales v. … Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U. S. 351 ; Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U. S. 591 .

Fender Musical Instruments Corporation v. Win-D-Fender, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jan 12, 2023

Record citations are to TTABVUE, the Board’s publicly available docket history system. See, e.g., New Era Cap Co., Inc. v. Pro Era, LLC, 2020 USPQ2d 10596, *2 n.1 (TTAB 2020). … An application that is the subject of a Board inter partes proceeding may not be amended except with the consent of the other party or parties and the approval of the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board.

Gallagher v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 291 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1913

-The latter it may also be said is not verified though setting forth matters déhors the record as required by the rules of the Board of General Appraisers. See generally: Gallagher & Ascher v. United States ( 3 Ct. … D. 33168); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 329 ; T. D. 32055); United States v. Georgia Pulp & Paper Manufacturing Co. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 410 ; T. D. 32998). Affirmed.

191023-103541

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Sep 30, 2021

Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524, 529 (1993). … Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet .App. 361, 363 (1993) (emphasis in original).

United States v. Miller

5 Ct. Cust. 256 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1914

De Vries, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: Three appeals from as many decisions of the Board of General Appraisers covering importations of fish in tins. • *257 In United States, appellant, v. … United States v. Rosenstein ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 304 ; T. D. 31357); Ahlbrecht & Son v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 471 ; T. D. 32226); United States v. Smith & Nessle Co. et als. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 70 ; T.

The Conde Nast Publications, Inc. v. American Greetings Corporation

329 F.2d 1012 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 9, 1964

Co. v. … We consider apposite to the situation here the principle stated by this court in Clinton Detergent Company v. Procter & Gamble Co., 302 F.2d 745 , 49 CCPA 1146.

Baker v. United States

34 Fed. Cl. 645 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 12, 1995

Thorough judicial review, however, is appropriate of challenges to the composition and procedures followed by a selection board. See, e.g., Sargisson v. United States, 913 F.2d 918 (Fed.Cir.1990); Hoffman v. … In Wygant v.

The Outdoor Recreation Group

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Dec 11, 2006

v. RDB Inc., 940 F.2d 638, 19 USPQ2d 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1991); and H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc., supra. … Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co., supra; and In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., supra.

Johnson, Jr. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 28, 2021

Barnick v. United States, 591 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Chambers v. United States, 417 F.3d 1218, 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). … Dodson v. United States, 988 F.2d 1199, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Court may set aside a corrections board’s decision if a plaintiff can demonstrate “by cogent and clearly convincing evidence,” Wronke v.

United States v. Sheldon & Co.

2 Ct. Cust. 283 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1911

We are *285 irresistibly led to the conclusion that the article we are dealing with is imitation jet, and that the whole record read together clearly indicates this. ' This being so, the case is ruled by United States v. … The decision of the board is affirmed.

Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 389 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1912

Arthur v. Morgan ( 112 U. S., 495 ), Herrman v. Robertson ( 152 U. S., 521 ), Presson v. Russell ( 152 U. S., 577 ), Heinze v. Arthur’s Executors ( 144 U. S., 28 ), Battle v. United States (108 Fed. Rep., 216). … Arthur v. Fox ( 108 U. S., 125 ). In Pickhardt v. Merritt ( 132 U.

Breuer v. DeMarinis

558 F.2d 22 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1977

Kistler v. … The board’s opinion does not mention this statement. . Accord, Golota v. Strom, 489 F.2d 1287 , 180 USPQ 396 (Cust. & Pat.App. 1974). .

Universal Overall Company v. Stonecutter Mills Corporation

310 F.2d 952 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 12, 1962

See: Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sunnen, [ 333 U.S. 591 , 68 S.Ct. 715 , 92 L.Ed. 898 ], 77 U.S.P.Q. 29 * * *; American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. … On the basis of the ■ record and the arguments before us we think the board erred. Applying the principles set out in *956 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.