Case law

National Ass'n of Blue Shield Plans v. Standard Mattress Co.

478 F.2d 1253 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 14, 1973

The board found no documentation of the first item. … As an example, one of the cases is Sleepmaster Products Co. v. American Auto-Felt Co., 241 F.2d 738 , 44 CCPA 784 (1957) wherein the mark “HEALTHMASTER” was involved. Another ease, The Spring-Air Co. v.

Tomecek v. Stimpson

513 F.2d 614 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 3, 1975

See Paivinen v. Sands, 339 F.2d 217, 226-27 , 52 CCPA 906, 918 (1964). See also Knowles v. Tibbetts, 347 F.2d 591, 594 , 52 CCPA 1800, 1804 (1965); Voisinet v. Coglianese, 455 F.2d 1064, 1068 , 59 CCPA 958, 963 (1972). … We agree with the board that this activity did not negate Stimpson’s showing of a reduction to practice because it involved only a commercialization of the invention. See Koval v.

Bielec v. United States

456 F.2d 690 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 17, 1972

Harris v. United States, 153 Ct. Cl. 425 (1961). … See Ganse v. United States, 180 Ct. Cl. 183, 186 , 376 F. 2d 900 (1967); Price v. United States, 112 Ct. Cl. 198, 200 , 80 F. Supp. 542, 543 (1948); Coleman, v. United States, 100 Ct. Cl. 41 (1943); Dvorkin v.

Brown

214 Ct. Cl. 731 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 25, 1977

United States v. Brown , Civ. No. 146-73C2. The trial judge granted the stay on July 7, 1977. "It is unclear why plaintiff requests the stay of proceedings to be vacated at this time. … Brown v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 768 , 524 F.2d 693 (1975). The contracts are listed in footnote 15 of the court’s opinion.

In re Rosen

673 F.2d 388 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 11, 1982

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) sustaining the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of appellant’s 1 de *389 sign as claimed in application serial No. 875,918, … The board, in affirming the rejection, added: The essential core of appellant’s design, when viewed as a. whole, is as stated hereinbefore, a round glass top table with three V-shaped notched legs which receive and support

Barnes v. United States

170 Ct. Cl. 639 · United States Court of Claims · May 14, 1965

Davis et al. v. United States, 164 Ct. … Keim v. United States, 177 U.S. 290 (1900); Eberlein v. United States, 257 U.S. 82 (1921). Plaintiffs’ reliance on our recent decision in Colbath v. United States, 169 Ct. Cl. 414 , 341 F. 2d 626 (1965), is misplaced.

Hadden v. United States

131 Ct. Cl. 326 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 5, 1955

Ketchum v. St. Louis, 101 U. S. 306 ; Walker v. Brown, 165 U. S. 654 ; United States v. Butterworth-Judson Corp., 267 U. S. 387 . … Duell v. Brewer, supra. Ohio and Pennsylvania, on the other hand, do have such an action. Iddings v. Whitacre, 1 Ohio App. 223 ; Mott v. *341 Danforth, 6 Watts 304 ; Penrod v. Mitchell, 8 Sarg. & R. 522.

M/V SIGNEBORG

9 I. & N. Dec. 6 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1960

National Surety yo., zo Auers v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 25 F. Supp. 458; Shultz v. Morgan, 42 P.. 254. ' 4 mitter v. Robertson, 266 U.S. 243. D United States v. J. H. … Construchan Co. v.

Consolidated Cigar Corp. v. M. Landaw Ltd.

474 F.2d 1402 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 29, 1973

This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 167 USPQ 372 (1970), involving the application of M. … See Mead Johnson & Co. v. American Home Products Corp., 461 F.2d 1381 , 59 CCPA 1082 (1972).

Miller v. Commissioner

28 B.T.A. 229 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · May 31, 1933

Flutmus v. City of Newport, 175 Ky. 817 ; 194 S.W. 1039 . This distinction is generally recognized. City of Winona v. Botzet, 169 Fed. 321 . … Byers, 35 Fed. (2d) 326; City of Winona v. Botzet, supra; Woodward v. Livermore Falls Water District, 116 Me. 86 ; 100 Atl. 317 . Cf. South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 , and Burnet v.

GOOLCHARAN

23 I. & N. Dec. 5 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2001

Golub, Assistant District Counsel Before: Board Panel: HEILMAN, FILPPU, and MOSCATO, Board Members. … V 1999) (stating that an order of deportation becomes final upon either a determination by the Board affirming the order below or the expiration of the time to appeal that order, whichever is earlier); Antiterrorism and Effective

Champion Rivet Co. v. United States

30 F. Supp. 234 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 4, 1939

opinion of the court: The contentions of plaintiff in this case are the same as the contentions advanced by it in support of its claimed right to recover the tax assessed and collected in Lehigh Portland *74 Cement Company v. … Compare Columbia Carbon Co. et al. v. United States, 77 Ct. Cls. 768.

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.

Redcay v. Commissioner

12 T.C. 806 · United States Tax Court · May 20, 1949

Redcay v. State Board of Education (1942), 25 Atl. (2d) 632; (1943), 33 Atl. (2d) 120; and (1944), 36 Atl. (2d) 428. … Spring City Foundry Co. v. Commissioner, 292 U. S. 182 .

190314-4046

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Sep 26, 2019

Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1243-44 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Smith v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 330, 333-34 (1997); Landicho v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 42, 47 (1994). … O'Shay Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Imam, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided.

Powermatics, Inc. v. Globe Roofing Products Co., Inc.

341 F.2d 127 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1965

Brewster-Ideal Chocolate Co. v. Dairy Maid Confectionary Co., 62 F.2d 844 , 20 CCPA 848; B. R. Baker Company v. Lebow Brothers, 150 F.2d 580 , 32 CCPA 1206. … Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Old Colony Shoe Co., 82 F.2d 709 , 23 CCPA 1039; B. R. Baker Co. v. Lebow Brothers, supra; Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Minnesota Linseed Oil Paint Co., 229 F.2d 448 , 43 CCPA 746.

Burlington Venetian Blind Co. v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 374 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 27, 1911

The board, on appeal, overruled the protest and sustained the assessment. … Stern et al v. United States (105 Fed. Rep., 937); Hiller et al v. United States (106 Fed. Rep. 73).

Dan River Mills, Incorporated v. The Yorke Shirt Corporation

390 F.2d 734 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1968

The registration numbers will be found in the published board opinion. 3 . … Dan River Mills, Inc. v. Preben Mikael Aerendal Mikkelsen, 145 USPQ 295 (1965), involving DANSK FORM, in which there was a dissent.

Vicente v. United States

1 Cl. Ct. 299 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 8, 1982

See Gaskins v. Merit Systems Protec *301 tion Board, 221 Ct.Cl. 918 , Order of October 23, 1979. . … Ramos v. Merit Systems Protection Board, Civil Action No. 81-2524, D.D.C., June 15, 1982.

United States v. McGibbon

7 Ct. Cust. 290 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 2, 1916

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest upon authority of United States v. Hamburger Levine Co. ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 217 ; T. D. 34382). … See also Krusi v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 168 ; T. D. 31213). The court agrees with the board that that case rules this.