Legal Opinion · Concurrence
California Packing Corporation v. Tillman & Bendel
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided April 14, 1930No. Patent Appeal 2341Published
1Concurrence
GARRETT and LENROOT, Associate Judges (specially concurring).
While concurring in the conclusion reached by the majority in this ease, we are not in accord with all the reasoning upon which that conclusion is based.
We think the decision should rest upon practically' the same grounds as those expressed in Cheek-Neal Coffee Co. v. Hal Dick Mfg. Co., 40 F. (2d) 106, decided concurrently herewith, and upon the reasoning in the specially concurring opinion in Goodrich Co. v. Hoekmeyer, 40 F.(2d) 99, also decided on this day.
The effect of the majority opinion, as we construe it, is to give an undue…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- American Steel Foundries v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Postum Cereal Co. v. California Fig Nut Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
- B. F. Goodrich Co. v. HockmeyerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
- Kassman & Kessner, Inc. v. Rosenberg Bros.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1926
- R. H. Macy & Co. v. H. W. Carter & SonsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1926
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.