Case law

Morton-Norwich Products, Inc. v. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc.

531 F.2d 561 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 8, 1976

We agree with the board that the close relationship of the parties’ goods and the similarity of commercial impressions of the marks are such that confusion would be likely. Spice Islands, Inc. v. … The board’s statement that likelihood of confusion from the simultaneous use of the parties’ marks on their goods is indicative of probable damage is clearly correct. Daggett & Ramsdell, Inc. v.

In re Rogoff

261 F.2d 601 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 15, 1958

Fox Typewriter Co. v. Corona Typewriter Co., 282 F. 502 ; In re Bostwick, 26 CCPA 1117, 102 F. 2d 886 , 41 USPQ 279 ; Schenk et al. v. United Aircraft Corp., 43 Fed. Supp. 679, 51 USPQ 519 ; and Mercoid Corp. v. … Similarly, in Hazeltine Corp. et al. v. A. H.

Kroekel v. Shah

558 F.2d 29 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 21, 1977

The Board The board found the counts ambiguous, and consulted the disclosure of the Shah patent, where the count language originated, to resolve that ambiguity. … Stansbury v. Bond, 482 F.2d 968 , 179 USPQ 88 (CCPA 1973).

Levy Corp. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 181 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 21, 1924

in their customary use they were all carried upon the person of the user not for warmth or protection like clothing but rather as incidental articles of mere personal comfort, convenience or adornment, citing Gallagher v. … It concluded that all the merchandise was dutiable under paragraph 356 unless eo nomine elsewhere provided for, citing Rumpp v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 203 ; T. D. 36507).

Switlik Parachute Co. v. United States

573 F.2d 1228 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 19, 1978

Cf., DeVito v. United States, 188 Ct. … See Davis v. United States, 180 Ct. Cl. 20, 34 (1967); and H & H Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 168 Ct. Cl. 873, 880-81 (1964).

American Federal Bank, FSB v. United States

62 Fed. Cl. 185 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 30, 2004

Lincoln Bank v. … Lincoln Bank v.

Robbins v. Steinbart

57 F.2d 378 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1932

Leonard v. Everett, 52 App. D. C. 90, 281 F. 594 ; Oldroyd v. Morgan, 58 App. D. C. 78, 24 F.(2d) 1004 . … See, also, Howell v. Hess, 122 O. G. 2393 , 1906 C. D. 217.

Emerson-Sack-Warner Corporation v. The United States

416 F.2d 1335 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 17, 1969

In concluding that the doctrine of accord and satisfaction precluded plaintiff, the Board “was in error, as a matter of law * * H. L. C. & Associates Constr. Co. v. United States, supra; cf. Corbetta Constr. Co. v. … “The Board will have to make the determination, either on the present record or after further evidence is produced.” Bell v.

Application of Claus L. Sporck

301 F.2d 686 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1962

Western States Machine Co. v. S. S. Hepworth Co., 2 Cir., 147 F.2d 345, 347 . … Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 214 U. S. 366 , 29 S.Ct. 652 , 53 L.Ed. 1034 .

Forshew v. United States

151 Ct. Cl. 597 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 1, 1960

This is in accord with prior decisions of the court in Hamrick v. United States, 120 Ct. Cl. 17 ; Thomas v. United States, 123 Ct. Cl. 507 ; Ramsey v. United States, 123 Ct. Cl. 504 ; Frame v. United States, 124 Ct. … See Robertson v. Chambers, 341 U.S. 37 . Plaintiff, relying on Register v. United States, 131 Ct.

Hazan v. United States

13 Cl. Ct. 66 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 27, 1987

In those cases where releases have been held not to bar additional claims, either the plaintiffs had two claims and the release of one claim did not release the other, Hiett v. … By accepting the relief recommended by the Board, the plaintiff has released his claim for the relief denied by the Board. Pilgreen v. United States, 231 Ct.Cl. 903, 905 (1982).

Todd Construction, L.P. v. United States

85 Fed. Cl. 34 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 9, 2008

In Malone v. … unavailable from the Board.”

United States v. Masson

3 Ct. Cust. 168 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1912

Oelrichs v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 355 ; T. D. 32091). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore affirmed.

T. F. Scholes, Inc., and Berks County Trust Company v. The United States

357 F.2d 963 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 18, 1966

Bateson Construction Co. v. United States, 149 Ct.Cl. 514, 518 (1960); Ivy H. Smith Co. v. United States, 154 Ct.Cl. 74, 83 (1961). … Levering & Garrigues Co. v. United States, 73 Ct.Cl. 566, 574 (1932).

Horn

650 F.2d 286 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 21, 1980

See, e.g., Hary v. United States, ante at 10, 618 F.2d 704 (1980). … See, e.g., Sanders v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 302 -03, 594 F.2d at 814 ; Hary v. United States, supra.

Edward Barron Estate Co. v. Commissioner

34 B.T.A. 1256 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 30, 1936

A. 22, it has been''consistently held that a petition is-not filed until it is officially deposited with the Board. This means at its office. Lewis-Hall Iron Works v. Blair, 23 Fed. (2d) 972; certiorari denied, 277 U. … See Poyner v. Commissioner, 81 Fed. (2d) 521. Reviewed by the Board.' The proceeding will he dismissed.

Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v. United States

229 F. Supp. 3d 1333 · United States Court of International Trade · May 18, 2017

V. … Ass’n of U.S. v.

Application of Standard Elektrik Lorenz Aktiengesellschaft

371 F.2d 870 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 9, 1967

See Kimberly-Clark Corporation v. Marzall, Comr., Pats., [90 U.S. App.D.C. 409, 196 F.2d 772 ] 93 USPQ 191 (CA DC, 1952). … As to this aspect we agree with the board.

Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. National Steel Construction Co.

442 F.2d 1383 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1971

The board rejected this argument and so do we. … In a similar situation involving the mark National Judge Kirkpatrick protected the mark in National Drying Machinery Co. v.

Parsons v. United States

65 Fed. Cl. 638 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 24, 2005

Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed.Cir.1997) (citing United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 2-3 , 89 S.Ct. 1501 , 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969)). 5 Next, Mr. … Brown, 105 F.3d at 623 (citing L’Enfant Plaza Props., Inc. v. United States, 227 Ct.Cl. 1 , 645 F.2d 886, 892 (1981)). Similarly, Mr.