OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 13

From the U.S. Copyright Office.
* Section 1301. Designs protected
* Section 1302. Designs not subject to protection
* Section 1303. Revisions, adaptations, and rearrangements
* Section 1304. Commencement of protection
* Section 1305. Term of protection
* Section 1306. Design notice
* Section 1307. Effect of omission of notice
* Section 1308. Exclusive rights
* Section 1309. Infringement
* Section 1310. Application for registration
* Section 1311. Benefit of earlier filing date in foreign country
* Section 1312. Oaths and acknowledgments
* Section 1313. Examination of application and issue or refusal of registration
* Section 1314. Certification of registration
* Section 1315. Publication of announcements and indexes
* Section 1316. Fees
* Section 1317. Regulations
* Section 1318. Copies of records
* Section 1319. Correction of errors in certificates
* Section 1320. Ownership and transfer
* Section 1321. Remedy for infringement
* Section 1322. Injunctions
* Section 1323. Recovery for infringement
* Section 1324. Power of court over registration
* Section 1325. Liability for action on registration fraudulently obtained
* Section 1326. Penalty for false marking
* Section 1327. Penalty for false representation
* Section 1328. Enforcement by Treasury and Postal Service
* Section 1329. Relation to design patent law
* Section 1330. Common law and other rights unaffected
* Section 1331. Administrator; Office of the Administrator
* Section 1332. No retroactive effect
# United States v. Steever

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
113 U.S. 747
United States v. Steever
Sol. Gen. Phillips, for appellant.
James Fullerton, for appellee.
GRAY, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Steamship Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
104 U.S. 480
United States v. Steamship Company
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The Solicitor-General for the United States.
Mr. William E. Chandler and Mr. John F. Farnsworth for the appellee.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Stevens

United States Supreme Court
302 U.S. 623
United States v. Stevens
Argued: Jan. 3, 4, 1938. --- Decided: Jan 17, 1938
Messrs. Homer S.C.ummings, Atty. Gen., and Paul Campbell, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Mr. James E. Carroll, of Boston, Mess., for respondents.
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Stevenson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
215 U.S. 190
United States v. Stevenson
Argued: and submitted October 14, 15, 1909. --- Decided: November 29, 1909
Solicitor General Bowers for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 191-193 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Herbert Parker, Charles C. Milton, and Henry H. Fuller for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 193-194 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Stever

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
222 U.S. 167
United States v. Stever
Argued: October 20, 1911. --- Decided: December 4, 1911
Assistant Attorney General Harr for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. W. M. Smith and J. S. McKemey for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice Lurton delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States ex rel. McLean v. Vilas

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
124 U.S. 86
United States ex rel. McLean v. Vilas
S. F. Phillips and Harvey Spalding, for plaintiff in error.
Atty. Gen. Garland, Asst. Atty. Gen. Howard, and Asst. Atty. Gen. Bryant, for defendant in error.
MILLER, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States ex rel. Lee Kum Hoy v. Murff/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 169
United States ex rel. Lee Kum Hoy v. Murff
Argued: Nov. 21, 1957. --- Decided: Dec 9, 1957
In view of the representation in the Solicitor General's argument at the Bar that the blood grouping test requirement here involved is presently and has been for some time applied without discrimination 'in every case, irrespective of race, whenever deemed necessary,' and in view of our remand of the case, we need not now pass upon the claim of unconstitutional discrimination.
It appearing that the blood grouping tests made herein were in some respects inaccurate and the reports thereof partly erroneous and conflicting, the judgments heretofore entered are vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court with directions that the hearings before the Special Inquiry Officer or a Board of Special Inquiry be reopened, so that new, accurate blood grouping tests may be made under appropriate circumstances, and that relevant evidence may be received as offered on the issues involved. The excludability of petitioners remains to be determined upon those proceedings.
Judgments vacated and case remanded with directions.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States ex rel. Levey v. Stockslager

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
129 U.S. 470
United States ex rel. Levey v. Stockslager
Walter H. Smith, S. W. Johnston, A. T. Britton, and A. B. Brown, for plaintiff in error.
Atty. Gen. Garland and H. J. May, for defendant in error.
BLATCHFORD, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States ex rel. Lowe v. Fisher

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
223 U.S. 95
United States ex rel. Lowe v. Fisher
Argued: November 14, 1911. --- Decided: January 29, 1912
Messrs. Charles H. Merillat, Charles J. Kappler, James K. Jones, and Frank E. Duncan for plaintiffs in error.
Assistant Attorney General Harr for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States ex rel. Lee Kum Hoy v. Murff

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
355 U.S. 169
United States ex rel. Lee Kum Hoy v. Murff
Argued: Nov. 21, 1957. --- Decided: Dec 9, 1957
Mr. Benjamin Gim, New York City, for petitioners.
Mr. John F. Davis, Washington, D.C., for respondents.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States ex rel. Mensevich v. Tod

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
264 U.S. 134
United States ex rel. Mensevich v. Tod
Argued: Jan. 2, 1924. --- Decided: Feb 18, 1924
Messrs. Walter Nelles and Isaac Shorr, both of New York City, for appellant.
Messrs. James M. Beck, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., and George Ross Hull, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Ostrager v. New Orleans Chapter Associated General Contractors of America

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
317 U.S. 562
United States Ostrager v. New Orleans Chapter Associated General Contractors of America
Argued: Dec. 10-11, 1942. --- Decided: Jan 18, 1943
Mr. William Katz, of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners.
Mr. R. Emmett Kerrigan, of New Orleans, La., for respondents.
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Polymeris v. Trudell/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
284 U.S. 279
United States Polymeris v. Trudell
Argued: Dec. 9, 1931. --- Decided: Jan 4, 1932
The relators, Aspasia Polymeris and her daughter Antigone, are Greek citizens who lawfully entered the United States in 1909 and lived for a number of years in New York City, which became and remains their domicil. In 1923, on account of the illness of Aspasia's husband, they went back to Greece with the intention, which the courts below found that they retained, of making only a temporary visit. The death of the husband and the necessity of settling his estate prolonged their stay until 1924. Beginning in that year they made several unsuccessful applications to the United States Consul General at Athens for documents that would permit them to return to New York. Finally, in 1929, they got authority to cross Canada on a pretended trip from Greece to Japan, and in 1930 presented themselves at St. Albans, Vt., for admission to the United States. They were taken into custody by the immigration inspector and sought release by habeas corpus, on the ground that they were entitled to enter the country. It was held that they 'were properly excluded under section 13(a) of the Immigration Act of 1924 (8 USCA § 213(a), since the Secretary of Labor did not admit them in his discretion * * * and neither presented an unexpired valid immigration visa or an unexpired valid permit to re-enter in accordance with the regulations promulgated under section 13(b) of that act.' (C. C. A.) 49 F.(2d) 730, 733. A contrary decision was reached in Johnson v. Keating (C. C. A.) 17 F.(2d) 50. Therefore a writ of certiorari was granted by this court 284 U.S. 601, 52 S.C.t. 13, 76 L. Ed. -.
The relators have no right to enter the United States unless it has been given to them by the United States. The burden of proof is upon them to show that they have the right. Immigration Act of 1924, § 23, 43 Stat. 165 (U.S.C.ode, tit. 8, § 221, 8 USCA § 221). By section 13 of the Act (8 USCA § 213) and the regulations under it, as remarked by the court below, a returning alien cannot enter unless he was either an immigration visa or a return permit. The relators must show not only that they ought to be admitted, but that the United States by the only voice authorized to express its will has said so. Obviously it has not done so, and therefore the judgment must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Patent and Trademark Office Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010

Note: This is the original legislation as it was initially enacted. Any subsequent amendments hosted on Wikisource may be listed using What Links Here.
An Act Making supplemental appropriations for the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, namely:

### DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
#### United States Patent And Trademark Office

    For an additional amount for “Salaries and Expenses” of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, $129,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That the sum herein appropriated from the general fund shall be reduced as offsetting collections assessed and collected pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1113 and 35 U.S.C. 41 and 376 are received during fiscal year 2010, so as to result in a fiscal year 2010 appropriation from the general fund estimated at $0: Provided further, That during fiscal year 2010, should the total amount of offsetting fee collections be less than $2,016,000,000, this amount shall be reduced accordingly.

#### Bureau Of The Census

Periodic Censuses and Programs
    Of funds made available under this heading by Public Law 111–117, $129,000,000 are hereby rescinded.
This Act may be cited as the “United States Patent and Trademark Office Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010”.
Approved August 10, 2010
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Poret v. Sigler

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 375
United States Poret v. Sigler
Messrs. G. Wray Gill and Gerard H. Schreiber, for petitioners.
Messrs. Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen. of Louisiana, M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John E. Jackson, Jr., Special Counsel to the Atty. Gen., for respondent.
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
PER CURIAM.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Norwegian Nitrogen Products Company v. United States Tariff Commission

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
274 U.S. 106
United States Norwegian Nitrogen Products Company v. United States Tariff Commission
Argued: March 3, 4, 1927. --- Decided: April 11, 1927
Messrs. George R. Davis and Marion De Vries, both of
Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.
The Attorney General and Mr. W. D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., and Robert P. Reeder, both of Washington, D. C. for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Printing Lithograph Company v. Griggs Cooper & Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
279 U.S. 156
United States Printing Lithograph Company v. Griggs Cooper & Company
Argued: March 6, 1929. --- Decided: April 8, 1929
Messrs. Walter F. Murray and Frank F. Dinsmore, both of Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner.
Messrs. E. H. Morphy and C. W. Cummins, both of St. Paul, Minn., for respondent.
Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Ostrager v. New Orleans Chapter Associated General Contractors of America/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
317 U.S. 562
United States Ostrager v. New Orleans Chapter Associated General Contractors of America
Argued: Dec. 10-11, 1942. --- Decided: Jan 18, 1943
This action is substantially similar to that in United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537, 63 S.Ct. 379, 87 L.Ed. --, decided this day. Relying on §§ 5438 and 3490-93, Revised Statutes, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 80, 82-86, 31 U.S.C.A. §§ 231-234, the petitioner charges that the respondents caused the government $7,620 damages by submitting fraudulent collusive bids on a hospital constructed with Federal Public Works Administration financial assistance. The petitioner in a qui tam action asks double damages plus $2,000 from each of seventeen respondents. The respondents had previously been indicted by the United States government in a criminal action and had paid fines totalling $5,000.
The respondents answered on the merits, made other pleadings not relevant at this stage of the case, and offered two special defenses; that the action placed them in double jeopardy in violation of the Fifth Amendment and that the statutes involved did not provide a basis for such a cause of action. The district court, without reaching the merits, dismissed the complaint on the theory of double jeopardy. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint but rested its conclusion on the belief that no claim against the United States was involved since the United States was not a party to the contract. It relied heavily on the Hess case as decided by the Circuit Court.
For the reasons set forth in our opinion in the Hess case, we believe that the decision below should be reversed.
It is so ordered.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER joins in this opinion but concurs on the question of double jeopardy for the reasons set forth in his opinion in No. 173, United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess. Mr. Justice JACKSON dissents for the reasons set forth in his opinion in the same case.
Mr. Justice MURPHY took no part in the consideration or disposition of this case.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Polymeris v. Trudell

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
284 U.S. 279
United States Polymeris v. Trudell
Argued: Dec. 9, 1931. --- Decided: Jan 4, 1932
Mr. Harold Van Riper, of New York City, for petitioners.
The Attorney General and Mr. Claude R Branch, of Providence, R. I., for respondents.
Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Poret v. Sigler/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 375
United States Poret v. Sigler
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case remanded to the District Court for disposition of the question whether members of petitioner's race were deliberately and intentionally limited and excluded in the selection of petit jury panels, in violation of the Federal Constitution.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Chicago Heights Trucking Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
310 U.S. 344
United States v. Chicago Heights Trucking Company
Argued: April 26, 27, 1940. --- Decided: May 20, 1940
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
Messrs. Robert H. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and A. H. Feller, of Washington, D.C., for appellants.
Messrs. John R. Turney and Robert E. Quirk, both of Washington, D.C., for appellees.
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Chicago Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
237 U.S. 410
United States v. Chicago Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company
Argued: January 7 and 8, 1915. --- Decided: May 10, 1915
Assistant Attorney General Underwood for petitioner.
Messrs. H. M. Langworthy, W. D. McLeod, O. H. Dean, William Warner, and O. M. Spencer for respondent.
Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Chicago Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
218 U.S. 233
United States v. Chicago Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company
Argued: April 26, 27, 1910. --- Decided: October 17, 1910
Mr. Barton Corneau for appellant.
Mr. Charles e. Vroman for appellee.
Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States v. Chicago, North Shore, & Milwaukee Railroad Company

United States Supreme Court
288 U.S. 1
United States v. Chicago, North Shore, & Milwaukee Railroad Company
Argued: Dec. 16, 1932. --- Decided: Jan 9, 1933
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
Messrs. William D. Mitchell, Atty. Gen., and John LordO'Brian, Asst. to the Atty. Gen., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from page 2 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Robert E. Quirk, of Washington, D.C., Ralph R. Bradley, of Chicago, Ill., and Claude D. Cass, of Washington, D.C., for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 3-5 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse