which have treated the ornamentation issue that because arch stitching does not adorn or embellish the upper in a commercially meaningful manner, the stitch is not ornamental. For example, in United States v. Mutual China Co. et al., 9 Ct.Cust.Appls. 232, T.D. 38202 (1919), the court held that embossed configurations on certain crockery articles had not been brought to that degree of embellishment as to be “ornamented” or “decorated” within the statute. As the court stated: “Certainly neither every deviated line nor undulated surface can be said to be an ornamentation or decoration, although pleasing to the eye.” Id. at 234. Further, in Will & Baumer Candle Co., Inc. v. United States, 21 Cust.Ct. 149, C.D. 1146 (1948), the court held that three vertical lines on a glass receptacle (<HOLDING>) were not ornamental since they were not
holding description which used phrase articles of personal property now or hereafter attached to delivered for use installed in or used in connection with said premises sufficient to cover air conditioning and heating equipment holding that a covenant stating that all lots shall be used exclusively for singlefamily dwellings was both a structural and a use restriction that prohibited the building of roads not used in connection with a residence holding that the application of the enhancement for using a firearm in connection with another felony offense is proper only if there is a clear connection between the firearm that was used in the other offense and the one that was used in the offense of conviction holding a candle used in connection with a sanctuary lamp holding that a pasture leased by the policyholder was not used in connection with the residence premises of the policyholder