Case law

Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc. v. Aloe 99, Inc.

485 F.2d 1241 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 25, 1973

In arriving at its decision, the board relied on two prior decisions in American Aloe Corp. v. Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc., 420 F.2d 1248 (7th Cir. 1970), and Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc. v. … The decision of the board is therefore reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. . Citing and quoting from Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v.

Andrews v. Principi

16 Vet. App. 309 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 12, 2002

He argues that, although the Board did not discuss the two documents in its decision, the Board had constructive notice of them and that the documents were, under Bell v. … Id. at 428; see also Schweiker v.

12-14 834

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Dec 31, 2014

Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996), citing Gilbert. … See Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524, 529 (1993).

Lockheed Martin Services, Inc.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Apr 25, 2016

Teg-Paradigm Environmental, Inc. v. US., 465 F.3d 1329 at 1338 (Fed. … Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 58028, 58794, Appeals of Lockheed Martin Services, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter.

Thomas v. Montgomery, III v. Department of Health and Human Services

2016 MSPB 8 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Feb 5, 2016

Gingery v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 114 M.S.P.R. 175, ¶ 6 (2010); Walker v. … Based on the foregoing, we find that the Board has jurisdiction over the appellant’s right-to-compete claim under 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(1)(A) 2 and (a)(1)(B). See Styslinger v.

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.

James Harding v. Samuel Steingiser and Ival O. Salyer

318 F.2d 748 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1963

In Blicke v. … In support of that holding the board relied on Teter v. Kearby, 169 F.2d 808 , 36 CCPA 706, and Schering Corp. v. Marzall, D.C., 101 F.Supp. 571 .

Portland General Electric Co. v. United States

100 Fed. Cl. 46 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 26, 2011

In Indiana Michigan Power Company v. … In Northern States Power Co. v.

United States v. Macy

7 Ct. Cust. 8 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1916

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest. … See also Steinhardt v.

United States v. Dorn

13 Ct. Cust. 130 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1925

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest upon the theory that, in United States v. Stegemann, decided May 5, 1924, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 198 , T. … D. 40179, this court had intended to depart from the rule previously declared in United States v. Francklyn, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 54 , T. D. 33306, and in United States v. Hirsch, Stein & Co., 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 121 , T.

12-28 819

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Dec 31, 2014

Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). … The Board finds the Veteran's 1975 denial of back pain to be more probative than his recollection - three decades later - that he was experiencing back pain. See Curry v. Brown, 7 Vet.

Larzelere & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 510 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 12, 1915

Waterman v. Bailey ( 111 Mich., 571 ). But to be effective the method of taking the appeal must be pointed out. … The Board of General Appraisers in the present case, while filing no opinion, held that such service was sufficient, and we think the decision should be affirmed.

C. R. Bard, Inc. v. Foley Bag Catheter, Inc.

394 F.2d 582 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 16, 1968

We find no reversible error in the board’s finding that the answer amounts to a proper pleading. 4 . C. R. Bard, Inc. v. Foley Bag Catheter, Inc., 132 USPQ 470 (T.T. & A.B., 1961). 5 . … Appellant has cited Fischbeck v. Kleeno, 44 App.D.C. 6 , (1915), and Walgreen Co. v.

Luster Products, Inc. v. John M. Van Zandt d/b/a Vanza USA

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Nov 28, 2012

In Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates L.P., 507 U.S. 380 (1993), as discussed by the Board in Pumpkin, Ltd. v. … See Pumpkin, Ltd. v.

Franklin Title & Trust Co. v. Commissioner

32 B.T.A. 266 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Mar 28, 1935

It cites Hecht v. Malley, 265 U. … The Board, like the courts, will not weigh to a nicety the relative merits of accounting systems. Brown v. Helvering, 291 U. S. 193 .

In Re Crosley

159 F.2d 735 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1947

As stated in the case of In re Merz, 97 F.2d 599 , 25 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1314, 1317, referring to the case of Farbenfabriken of Elberfeld Co. v. … Accordingly, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. United States

77 Ct. Cl. 57 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 6, 1933

Knapp v. United States, 46 C.Cls. 601; Coleman v. United States, 152 U.S. 96 ; Bigby v. United States, 188 U.S. 400 . In Bigby v. … In Coleman v.

09-03 190

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Dec 31, 2015

See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993). In July 2014, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that proceeding is of record. … See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).

Black v. United States

28 Fed. Cl. 177 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 28, 1993

See Black v. United States, 24 Cl.Ct. 461 (1991); Black v. United States, 24 Cl.Ct. 465 (1991); Black v. United States, 24 Cl.Ct. 471 (1991); Black v. United States, 25 Cl.Ct. 268 (1992). … See Hutter v. United States, 345 F.2d 828 , 170 Ct.Cl. 517 (1965); Weiner v. United States, 148 Ct.Cl. 445 (1960); Suter v.

Morimura Bros v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 211 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 20, 1917

United States v. Zinn ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 419 ; T. D. 32171). … They are United States v. Muhlens et al. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 496 ; T. D. 33917) and United States v. Vantine ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 516 ; T. D. 33937).