Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2002 section 32 amendment of section 67 Year: 1909 Page 1 of about 33 results (1.420 seconds)

Atkins Vs. Moore

Court : US Supreme Court

Atkins v. Moore - 212 U.S. 285 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Atkins v. Moore, 212 U.S. 285 (1909) Atkins v. Moore No. 86 Argued January 22, 1909 Decided February 23, 1909 212 U.S. 285 APPEAL FROM AND IN ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus Proceedings under the Trade-Mark Act of February 20, 1905, c. 592, 33 Stat. 724, and the specific provision of 9 thereof, are governed by the same rule of practice and procedure as in the instance of patents, and decision of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia on appeals from the Commissioner of Patent are not reviewable by the Court. Frasch v. Moore, 211 U. S. 1 , followed; Gaines v. Knecht & Son, 27 App.D.C. 530, approved. Plaintiffs filed their application for a trademark on June 12, 1905, in which it was recited that -- "The trademark consists of a symbol composed of the letters 'AAA.' . . . The trademark is usually displayed on the goods by etching, stamping, or otherwise marking the sam...

United States Vs. Celestine

Court : US Supreme Court

United States v. Celestine - 215 U.S. 278 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Celestine, 215 U.S. 278 (1909) United States v. Celestine No. 235 Argued October 14, 1909 Decided December 13, 1909 215 U.S. 278 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Syllabus Although an Indian may be made a citizen of the United States and of the state in which the reservation for his tribe is located, the United States may still retain jurisdiction over him for offenses committed within the limits of the reservation, and so held as to a crime committed by an Indian against another Indian on the Tulalip Indian Reservation in Washington, notwithstanding the Indians had received allotments under the treaties with the Omahas of March 16, 1834, and of Point Elliott of January 22, 1835. Matter Page 215 U. S. 279 of Heff, 197 U. S. 488 , distinguished, the Indian in that case being an allottee under the General Allotment Act of February 8, 1...

Sylvester Vs. Washington

Court : US Supreme Court

Sylvester v. Washington - 215 U.S. 80 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Sylvester v. Washington, 215 U.S. 80 (1909) Sylvester v. Washington No. 40 Argued November 4, 5, 1909 Decided November 15, 1909 215 U.S. 80 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Syllabus Where, in the state court, plaintiff in error set up the invalidity of a deed under the provisions of an act of Congress and judgment could not be rendered against him without sustaining the deed, this Court has jurisdiction under 709, Rev.Stat. Anderson v. Carkins, 135 U. S. 483 ; Nutt v. Knut, 200 U. S. 12 . Page 215 U. S. 81 Where Congress appropriates for a territory to erect buildings, the implication is that the territory must control the land on which the buildings are to be erected, and where land is cheap, the implied authority will not be limited to merely leasing the land. Quaere whether an organized territory has not power to purchase land for a seat of government. Under the Oregon Donati...

The Advocate-general of Bombay Vs. Haji Ismail Hasham

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1910)12BOMLR274

Beaman, J.1. The defendant in this suit, one Haji Esmail, has put up a large building at the corner of Hornby-road and Church-gate Street. The plans were submitted to the Municipal authorities in 1907, and on the 23rd November 1907 the Engineering Department informed the defendant that there was no objection to the proposed extension as shown on the amended plans, provided the work was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act and Building Bye-laws. The plans which were then submitted to the Municipal authorities give an all round height of 70 ft. But the permission granted by the Engineering Department is qualified and the defendant is warned that he must conform with the provisions of the Municipal Act and Building Bye-laws. Apparently at that time it had not occurred to the Municipal authorities that the proposed extension, meaning I suppose down Churchgate Street, would infringe any of those provisions or Bye-laws. The work progressed up to April 1909, when...

Mcgilvra and Bressler Vs. Ross

Court : US Supreme Court

McGilvra and Bressler v. Ross - 215 U.S. 70 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court McGilvra and Bressler v. Ross, 215 U.S. 70 (1909) McGilvra and Bressler v. Ross No. 328 Argued October 19, 20, 1909 Decided November 15, 1909 215 U.S. 70 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus While the construction of the act of Congress under which a patent issued and what rights passed under the patent present federal questions which give the circuit court jurisdiction of the case as one arising under the laws of the United States, if prior decisions have so defined such rights that they are removed from controversy, jurisdiction does not exist in the absence of diverse citizenship. The decision in Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1 , which determined the relative rights of a patentee of the United States and one holding under a conveyance from the land below high water mark applies equally to lands bordering on navigable waters, whether tidal or inland, a...

Caliga Vs. Inter Ocean Newspaper Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Caliga v. Inter Ocean Newspaper Co. - 215 U.S. 182 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Caliga v. Inter Ocean Newspaper Co., 215 U.S. 182 (1909) Caliga v. Inter Ocean Newspaper Company No. 22 Argued November 5, 1909 Decided November 29, 1909 215 U.S. 182 ERROR TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Statutory copyright is not to be confounded with the exclusive property of the author in his manuscript at common law. In enacting the copyright statute, Congress did not sanction an existing right, but created a new one dependent on compliance with the statute. Under existing copyright law of the United States, there is no provision for filing amendments to the first application, and, the matter being wholly subject to statutory regulation, copyright on a second application cannot be sustained. The statutory limit of copyright cannot be extended by new applications. 157 F. 186 affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion. Page 215 U. S. 186 MR....

United States Vs. Biggs

Court : US Supreme Court

United States v. Biggs - 211 U.S. 507 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Biggs, 211 U.S. 507 (1909) United States v. Biggs No. 289 Argued December 16, 17, 1908 Decided January 4, 1909 211 U.S. 507 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Syllabus United States v. Keitel, ante, p. 211 U. S. 370 , followed as to the power of this Court to review judgments in criminal cases at the instance of the government under the Act of March 2, 1907, c. 2546, 34 Stat. 1246. The Timber and Stone Act of June 3, 1878, c. 151, 20 Stat. 89, as amended by the act of August 4, 1892, c. 375, 2, 27 Stat. 348,{1} while prohibiting the entryman from entering ostensibly for himself but in reality for another, does not prohibit him from selling his claim to another after application and before final action. Williamson v. United States, 207 U. S. 425 . An indictment for conspiracy to defraud the United States by improperly obtaining title to public ...

Boquillas Land and Cattle Co. Vs. Curtis

Court : US Supreme Court

Boquillas Land and Cattle Co. v. Curtis - 213 U.S. 339 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Boquillas Land and Cattle Co. v. Curtis, 213 U.S. 339 (1909) Boquillas Land and Cattle Company v. Curtis No. 133 Argued April 7, 1909 Decided April 19, 1909 213 U.S. 339 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA Syllabus Under 3198, Rev.Stat. of Arizona of 1887, the common law doctrine of riparian rights does not now obtain in that territory, and, as held by the supreme court of the territory, the doctrine of appropriation was recognized and to some extent in force prior to and since 1833 in the State of Sonora, now a part of that territory. Page 213 U. S. 340 Confirmation of an estate doe not enlarge it, and where the original Mexican title did not carry riparian rights, the mere confirmation thereof by the United States doe not give such rights to the confirmee. The Legislative Act of Arizona, Howell's Code of 1864, c. 61, 7, adopting the common law of England was merely ...

Reavis Vs. Fianza

Court : US Supreme Court

Reavis v. Fianza - 215 U.S. 16 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Reavis v. Fianza, 215 U.S. 16 (1909) Reavis v. Fianza No. 16 Argued April 26, 27, 1909 Decided November 1, 1909 215 U.S. 16 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Syllabus This Court has jurisdiction of this case, for, even if the requisite amount is not involved, the meaning and effect of a provision of the Philippine Organic Act of July 1, 1902, c. 1369, 32 Stats. 691, is involved. The provision of 45 of the Organic Act of the Philippine Islands relating to title to mines by prescription refers to conditions as they were before the United States came into power and had in view the natives of the islands and intention to do them liberal justice. Courts are justified in dealing liberally with natives of the Philippines in dealing with evidence of possession. Carino v. Insular Government, 212 U. S. 449 . The limitation of size of mining claims in 22 of the Philippine Organic Act applies only to...

Scully Vs. Squier

Court : US Supreme Court

Scully v. Squier - 215 U.S. 144 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Scully v. Squier, 215 U.S. 144 (1909) Scully v. Squier No. 21 Argued November 6, 1909 Decided November 29, 1909 215 U.S. 144 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Syllabus Where plaintiff bases his bill on the contention that, under the townsite law, 2387, Rev.Stat., the ascertainment of boundaries by official survey is a condition subsequent upon which the vesting of the equitable rights of the occupant depends, the construction of a law of the United States is involved, and, if passed on adversely by the state court, this Court has jurisdiction under 709, Rev.Stat., to review the judgment. The object of local legislation authorized by the townsite law, 2387 Rev.Stat., is to consummate the grant of the government to the townsite occupants -- not to alter or diminish it -- and in this case, the construction by the state court of the territorial statute followed to the effect that the trustee and surveyo...