alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010288EN.01001802.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/18 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 19 July 2010 — Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (Sabam) v Netlog NV (Case C-360/10) () (2010/C 288/30) Language of the case: Dutch Referring court Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (Sabam) Defendant: Netlog NV Question referred Do Directives 2001/29 ( 1 ) and 2004/48, ( 2 ) in conjunction with Directives 95/46, ( 3 ) 2000/31 ( 4 ) and 2002/58, ( 5 ) construed in particular in the light of Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, permit Member States to authorise a national court, before which substantive proceedings have been brought and on the basis merely of a statutory provision stating that: ‘They [the national courts] may also issue an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related right’, to order a hosting service provider to introduce, for all its customers, in abstracto and as a preventive measure, at its own cost and for an unlimited period, a system for filtering most of the information which is stored on its servers in order to identify on its servers electronic files containing musical, cinematographic or audio-visual work in respect of which SABAM claims to hold rights, and subsequently to block the exchange of such files? ( 1 )  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10). ( 2 )  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45). ( 3 )  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31). ( 4 )  Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1). ( 5 )  Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37).

---
EXHIBIT 4

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We hereby consent to the inclusion of our report dated May 7, 2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of FirstService Corporation (the "Company")
as at March 31, 2004 and 2003 and the consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each year in the three-year period ended March 31, 2004,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2004.

|                                                    |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                                                    |  | 
|                                                    |  | 
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPChartered Accountants |  | 
|Toronto, Canada
May 7, 2004                         |  | 

58

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 99



Certification of filing by officers

I, Wirt D. Walker lll, the Chief Executive Officer of Aviation General,
Incorporated, certify (I) the form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information
contained in the form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Aviation General, Incorporated.

/s/ Wirt D. Walker lll

---------------------

Wirt D. Walker lll
Chief Executive Officer
Chairman of the Board of Directors

I, Jeffrey Henderson, the Chief Financial Officer of Aviation General,
Incorporated, certify that (I) the form 10-QSB fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii)
the information contained in the form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Aviation General,
Incorporated.

/s/ Jeffrey Henderson

---------------------

Jeffrey Henderson
Chief Financial Officer
§ 1300.106 Harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, age, or disability. It is TVA policy that all TVA employees are responsible for assuring that the workplace is free from harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, age, or disability. Accordingly, all employees must avoid any action or conduct which could be viewed as harassment on these bases, including any verbal or physical conduct relating to an individual's race, color, religion, age, or disability when such conduct: ( a ) Has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment;
( b ) Has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance; or
( c ) Otherwise adversely affects an individual's employment opportunities.
# C_2010288EN.01004302.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/43

---

Action brought on 10 August 2010 — Fraas v OHIM (Light grey, dark grey, beige, dark red and brown coloured checked pattern)

(Case T-326/10)

()

(2010/C 288/83)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: V. Fraas GmbH (Helmbrechts-Wüstenselbitz, Germany) (represented by G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 June 2010 in Case R 188/2010-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 June 2010 in Case R 188/2010-4;

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a light grey, dark grey, beige, dark red and brown coloured checked pattern, for goods in Classes 18, 24 and 25.

Decision of the Examiner: Registration was refused.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) since the Community trade mark concerned does have distinctive character, and infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal did not address the applicant's extensive factual and legal submissions.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

---
### §22. District in which to sue corporation

Any suit, action, or proceeding under the antitrust laws against a corporation may be brought not only in the judicial district whereof it is an inhabitant, but also in any district wherein it may be found or transacts business; and all process in such cases may be served in the district of which it is an inhabitant, or wherever it may be found.

(Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, §12, 38 Stat. 736.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The antitrust laws, referred to in text, are defined in section 12 of this title.
#### § 590.570 Control of pathogens in pasteurized egg products.

Pasteurized egg products must be produced to be edible without additional preparation to achieve food safety and may receive additional preparation for palatability or aesthetic, epicurean, gastronomic, or culinary purposes. Pasteurized egg products are not required to bear a safe-handling instruction or other labeling that directs that the product must be cooked or otherwise treated for safety.

[85 FR 68680, Oct. 29, 2020; 85 FR 81341, Dec. 16, 2020]
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.16
Summary of Director Compensation
Director Fees 
The compensation of the non-employee directors of Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. (the “Company”), is paid in the form of an annual retainer, meeting and chair fees and stock-based awards. The fees that each non-employee director or committee chair, received for his or her service, are the following:    
		
	•
	An annual retainer of $80,000;




		
	•
	An additional $20,000 retainer for the Chair of the Audit Committee; 




		
	•
	An additional $20,000 retainer for the Chair of the Compensation Committee; 




		
	•
	An additional $20,000 retainer for the Chair of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee; 




		
	•
	An attendance fee of $1,500 for each Board meeting or committee meeting (telephonic or in person), other than meetings of the Audit Committee (whether regularly scheduled meetings or special meetings); and




		
	•
	An attendance fee of $2,000 for each meeting of the Audit Committee (whether regularly scheduled or special meetings). 




Director Fees Paid to the Chairman of the Board
The Chairman of the Board receives the normal annual retainer of $80,000 and an additional retainer of $150,000 for service as Pinnacle’s Non-Executive Chairman of the Board, and attendance fees for attending Board or committee meetings paid to other directors.
Equity Grants 
In 2015, Pinnacle granted to each non-employee director who was then serving 4,314 restricted stock units, which vest on the first anniversary of the date of grant on October 5, 2016.  In addition, Mr. Atwood received an additional grant of 1,600 restricted stock units, which vest on the first anniversary of the date of grant on October 5, 2016.
# C_2013046EN.01000302.xml

| 16.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ’s-Gravenhage — Netherlands) — Leno Merken BV v Hagelkruis Beheer BV

(Case C-149/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 15(1) - ‘Genuine use of the trade mark’ - Territorial scope of use - Use of the Community trade mark in a single Member State - Whether sufficient)

2013/C 46/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Gerechtshof te ’s-Gravenhage

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Leno Merken BV

Applicant:

Defendant: Hagelkruis Beheer BV

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te’s-Gravenhage — Interpretation of Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Use of the mark — Genuine use — Meaning — Use of a Community trade mark on the territory of just one Member State — Use regarded as genuine by that State if it were an identical national mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the territorial borders of the Member States should be disregarded in the assessment of whether a trade mark has been put to ‘genuine use in the Community’ within the meaning of that provision.

A Community trade mark is put to ‘genuine use’ within the meaning of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 when it is used in accordance with its essential function and for the purpose of maintaining or creating market share within the European Community for the goods or services covered by it. It is for the referring court to assess whether the conditions are met in the main proceedings, taking account of all the relevant facts and circumstances, including the characteristics of the market concerned, the nature of the goods or services protected by the trade mark and the territorial extent and the scale of the use as well as its frequency and regularity.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
<LEGEND>
MSDW Municipal Income Opportunities Trust
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-2000
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                      176,777,520
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                     159,677,155
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,182,869
<ASSETS-OTHER>                                 345,979
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             164,206,003
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                             0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                              0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                    (295,796)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                          (295,796)
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                                      0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                   199,281,239
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                       21,027,672
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                       21,089,872
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                    2,835,821
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                               0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                   (21,106,488)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                             0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                  (17,100,365)
<NET-ASSETS>                               163,910,207
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                                    0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                           13,666,918
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<EXPENSES-NET>                             (1,613,324)
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                     12,053,594
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                   (4,642,652)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                 (13,157,810)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                      (5,746,868)
<EQUALIZATION>                                       0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                 (13,058,564)
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                             0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                                0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                              0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                   (62,200)
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                                  0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                    (19,290,166)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                      3,840,791
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                 (16,463,836)
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                           0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                        (867,619)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                            (1,621,489)
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                       172,575,561
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                             8.69
<PER-SHARE-NII>                                   0.57
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                         (0.85)
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                            (0.62)
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                         0.00
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                              0.00
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                               7.79
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                                   0.93


</TABLE>
# C_2011238EN.01001601.xml

| 13.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2011 — Timehouse v OHIM (Shape of a watch with jagged edges)

(Case T-235/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional mark - Shape of a watch with jagged edges - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 238/24

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Timehouse GmbH (Eystrup, Germany) (represented by: V. Knies, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2011 (Case R 0942/2009-1), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a watch as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Timehouse GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Timehouse GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.

1

---
Exhibit 3.4
                         CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF

                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                      OF

                           RAPID LINK, INCORPORATED

      Dial-Thru International, a corporation organized and existing under and
 by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,

      DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

      FIRST:  That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of Dial-Thru
 International Corporation resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a
 proposed amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation,
 declaring said amendment to be advisable and calling a meeting of the
 stockholders of said corporation for consideration thereof.  The resolutions
 setting forth the proposed amendments are as follows:

      RESOLVED, That the Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation be
 amended by changing the First Article so that, as amended said Article shall
 read as follows:

      "The name of this corporation shall be "Rapid Link, Incorporated.""

      FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Certificate of Incorporation of this
 corporation be amended by changing the first paragraph of the Sixth Article
 thereof so that, as amended said Article shall be and read as follows:

      "The aggregate number of shares of all classes of stock which the
      corporation shall have authority to issue is One Hundred and Eighty-
      Five Million (185,000,000) shares consisting of (A) One Hundred and
      Seventy-Five Million (175,000,000) shares of common stock, par value
      $0.001 per share (the "Common Stock"), and (B) Ten Million (10,000,000)
      shares of preferred stock, par value $0.0001 per share (the "Preferred
      Stock")."

      SECOND:  That thereafter, pursuant to resolutions of its Board of
 Directors, an annual meeting of the stockholders of said corporation was
 duly called and held upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the
 General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, at which meeting the
 necessary number of shares as required by statute were voted in favor of
 the amendment.

      THIRD:  That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the
 provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
 Delaware.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Dial-Thru International Corporation has caused
 this certificate to be signed by John Jenkins, its Chief Executive Officer,
 this 28th day of October 2005.

                                    /s/ John Jenkins
                                    ___________________
                                    John Jenkins
                                    Chief Executive Officer
# C_2012098EN.01000901.xml

| 31.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação SA v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-25/11) (1)

1

(Taxation - Sixth VAT Directive - Deduction of input tax - Article 17(2) and (5) and Article 19 - ‘Subsidies’ used for the purchase of goods and services - Restriction of the right to deduct)

2012/C 98/11

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Interpretation of Article 17(2) and (5) and Article 19 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Deduction of input tax — Restriction of the right to deduct

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(2) and (5) and Article 19 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State, where it authorises mixed taxable persons to make the deduction provided for in those provisions on the basis of the use of all or part of the goods and services, from calculating the deductible amount, for sectors in which such taxable persons carry out taxable transactions only, by including untaxed ‘subsidies’ in the denominator of the fraction used to determine the deductible proportion.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.

1

---
# C_2007095EN.01003802.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/38

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 March 2007 — France Télécom v Commission

(Case T-339/04) (1)

1

(Competition - Decision ordering an inspection - Loyal cooperation with the national courts - Loyal cooperation with the national competition authorities - Article 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Commission Notice on Cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities - Statement of reasons - Proportionality)

(2007/C 95/76)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: France Télécom SA, formerly Wanadoo SA (Paris, France) (represented by: H. Calvet and M.-C. Rameau, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and O. Beynet, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision C (2004) 1929 of 18 May 2004 in Case COMP/C-1.38.916 ordering French Eélécom SA and all undertakings which it controls directly or indirectly, including Wanadoo SA and all undertakings controlled directly or indirectly by Wanadoo SA, to submit to an inspection pursuant to Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.

1

---