Legal Opinion

Bartley Bros. v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided November 14, 1912No. 715PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 25798 (T. D. 31675).

1Opinion of the CourtDe Vries, Judge

The merchandise is known as “Goddard’s Plate Powder.” The record is meager. A sample of the merchandise, with accompanying descriptive literature, properly identified as that covered by this importation and as imported into this country for many years, was received in evidence. The importation was in the form of an impalpable powder used, as its name implies, for polishing plate. It is put up in smah boxes with sealed printed coverings, upon which is the following descriptive language:

Goddard’s Non-mercurial Plate Powder.

Por more than seventy years this powder has sustained an unrivaled…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Arthur v. FoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
  2. Salomon v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
  3. United States v. Embossing Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Ishimitsu Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  2. United States v. KraemerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
  3. Lunham & Reeve, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1939
  4. Wanamaker v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  5. Lang v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API