alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016027EN.01005202.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/52

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Morgan v OHIM

(Case T-683/14 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Appraisal report - 2010-2011 Appraisal period - Distortion - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment))

(2016/C 027/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Rhys Morgan (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by M. Paolacci and A. Lukošiūtė, and subsequently by A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 July 2014 in Morgan v OHIM (F-26/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:180), and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Morgan

OHIM

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Declares that Rhys Morgan is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in the present appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Rhys Morgan is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in the present appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.

1

---
# C_2015389EN.01005101.xml

| 23.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/51

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 — Rintisch v OHIM — Compagnie laitière européenne (PROTICURD)

(Case T-382/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark PROTICURD - Earlier national word marks PROTI and PROTIPLUS - Earlier national figurative mark Proti Power - Relative ground for refusal - Admissibility - Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 389/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Compagnie laitière européenne SA (Condé-sur-Vire, France) (represented by C. Hertz-Eichenrode, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 March 2014 (Case R 609/2011-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Bernhard Rintisch and Compagnie laitière européenne SA

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 March 2014 (Case R 609/2011-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 March 2014 (Case R 609/2011-4);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Bernhard Rintisch; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Bernhard Rintisch;

| 3. | Orders Compagnie laitière européenne SA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Compagnie laitière européenne SA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.2120 Anaerobic chamber. ( a ) *Identification.* An anaerobic chamber is a device intended for medical purposes to maintain an anaerobic (oxygen free) environment. It is used to isolate and cultivate anaerobic microorganisms.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 866.9. The device is also exempt from the good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[47 FR 50823, Nov. 9, 1982, as amended at 66 FR 38790, July 25, 2001]
### From the Desk of:

Richard Brown Sr. Scientist Innovative Imaging & Research Stennis Space Center, MS 39529 228

- 688

- 1236

S ep t. 1 8 , 2015

Dear Mr. Daniels:

Having spoken to you on July 9, 2015 concerning the Request for Addit i onal Info rm ation document Posted : 06/09/2015 ID : FAA

- 2015

- 0973

- 0002
, I am posting this response formally to summarize our discussion. The above sited document was a copy of an email sent to the incorrect email address ( rbrown@i2corp.com not rbrown@i2rco rp .com as listed in the 333 Exemption documentation submitted )

. I did not receive any email notification of the request for information.

After discovering the PDF copy of the email on our online docket folder, I contacted you personally on July 9. Per our conversation on July 9, it was affirmed by you that the information reques ted in the above sited document was already included in Appendix A of the 333 Exemption documentation submi tted by I2R and thus our 333 E xem pt ion review would be moved on to the next part of the process by FAA.
Thank you for your assistance and attention in this matter and please call me at (228)

- 688

- 1236 if there are any further questions.

Best regards,

Richard Brown
rbrown@i2rcorp.com
Exhibit 14.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form F-3 No. 333-118932 and
Form S-8 No. 333-106591) of Deutsche Telekom AG and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated March 13, 2006, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Deutsche Telekom AG included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2005.

March 13,
2006

|Ernst & Young AG
Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft
Stuttgart                                     |  |                            
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|(Prof. Dr. Pfitzer)
Wirtschaftsprüfer                                                          |  | (Hollweg)
Wirtschaftsprüfer
|PricewaterhouseCoopers AG
Aktiengesellschaft
Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft
Frankfurt am Main |  |                            
|(Frings)
Wirtschaftsprüfer                                                                     |  | (Menke)
Wirtschaftsprüfer  

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 31.2



I, Vincent J. Milano, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the registrant, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of ViroPharma
Incorporated.



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial
statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of
the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other
certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):



a) All significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or not
material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Vincent J. Milano                                                  
|Vincent J. Milano Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|March 14, 2005
§ 58.81 Standard operating procedures. ( a ) A testing facility shall have standard operating procedures in writing setting forth nonclinical laboratory study methods that management is satisfied are adequate to insure the quality and integrity of the data generated in the course of a study. All deviations in a study from standard operating procedures shall be authorized by the study director and shall be documented in the raw data. Significant changes in established standard operating procedures shall be properly authorized in writing by management.
( b ) Standard operating procedures shall be established for, but not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) Animal room preparation.
( 2 ) Animal care.
( 3 ) Receipt, identification, storage, handling, mixing, and method of sampling of the test and control articles.
( 4 ) Test system observations.
( 5 ) Laboratory tests.
( 6 ) Handling of animals found moribund or dead during study.
( 7 ) Necropsy of animals or postmortem examination of animals.
( 8 ) Collection and identification of specimens.
( 9 ) Histopathology.
( 10 ) Data handling, storage, and retrieval.
( 11 ) Maintenance and calibration of equipment.
( 12 ) Transfer, proper placement, and identification of animals.
( c ) Each laboratory area shall have immediately available laboratory manuals and standard operating procedures relative to the laboratory procedures being performed. Published literature may be used as a supplement to standard operating procedures.
( d ) A historical file of standard operating procedures, and all revisions thereof, including the dates of such revisions, shall be maintained.
[43 FR 60013, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 52 FR 33780, Sept. 4, 1987]
Editorial Note on Part 73
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 73 appear at 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001.

§ 73.3106 1,4-Bis[4-(2-methacryloxyethyl)phenylamino]anthraquinone copolymers. ( a ) *Identity.* The color additives are the copolymers formed as the reaction product of 1,4-bis[4-(2-methacryloxyethyl)phenylamino]anthraquinone (C.I. Reactive Blue 246) (CAS Reg. No. 121888-69-5) with one or more vinyl and/or acrylic monomers to form the contact lens material.
( b ) *Uses and restrictions.* ( 1 ) The substances listed in paragraph (a) of this section may be used in amounts not to exceed the minimum reasonably required to accomplish the intended coloring effect.
( 2 ) Authorization and compliance with these uses shall not be construed as waiving any of the requirements of sections 510(k), 515, and 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) with respect to contact lenses made from the color additives.
( c ) *Labeling.* The label of the color additives shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( d ) *Exemption from certification.* Certification of these color additives is not necessary for the protection of the public health and, therefore, the color additives are exempt from the certification requirements of section 721(c) of the act.
[58 FR 17507, Apr. 5, 1993, as amended at 60 FR 10497, Feb. 27, 1995; 78 FR 19415, Apr. 1, 2013]
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1358 Insulin therapy adjustment device. ( a ) *Identification.* An insulin therapy adjustment device is a device intended to incorporate biological inputs, including glucose measurement data from a continuous glucose monitor, to recommend insulin therapy adjustments as an aid in optimizing insulin therapy regimens for patients with diabetes mellitus.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) Design verification and validation must include the following: ( i ) A complete description of the required data inputs, including timeframe over which data inputs must be collected and number of data points required for accurate recommendations;
( ii ) A complete description of the types of device outputs and insulin therapy adjustment recommendations, including how the recommendations are generated;
( iii ) Robust data demonstrating the clinical validity of the device outputs and insulin therapy recommendations;
( iv ) A robust assessment of all input data specifications, including accuracy requirements for continuous glucose monitors and other devices generating data inputs, to ensure accurate and reliable therapy adjustment recommendations. This assessment must include adequate clinical justification for each specification;
( v ) A detailed strategy to ensure secure and reliable means of data transmission to and from the device, including data integrity checks, accuracy checks, reliability checks, and security measures;
( vi ) Robust data demonstrating that users can understand and appropriately interpret recommendations generated by the device; and
( vii ) An appropriate mitigation strategy to minimize the occurrence of dosing recommendation errors, and to mitigate the risk to patients of any residual dosing recommendation errors to a clinically acceptable level.
( 2 ) The device must not be intended for use in implementing automated insulin dosing.
( 3 ) Your 21 CFR 809.10(b) labeling must include: ( i ) The identification of specific insulin formulations that have been demonstrated to be compatible with use of the device;
( ii ) A detailed description of the specifications of compatible devices that provide acceptable input data (e.g., continuous glucose monitors, insulin pumps) used to provide accurate and reliable therapy adjustment recommendations;
( iii ) A detailed description of all types of required data (inputs) and dosing recommendations (outputs) that are provided by the device; and
( iv ) A description of device limitations, and instructions to prevent possible disruption of accurate therapy adjustment recommendations (e.g., time zone changes due to travel).
[83 FR 54874, Nov. 1, 2018]
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**Consent of Independent Auditors**

 

The Board of Directors 

Preferred Voice, Inc. 

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 File No. 333-99879 and Form S-8 No. 333-56728 and 333-82150) pertaining to Preferred Voice, Inc. of our report, dated April 24, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements of Preferred Voice, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended March 31, 2003. 

 

**Philip Vogel & Co. PC**

 

**/s/ Philip Vogel & Co. PC**

 

Dallas, Texas 

 

June 27, 2003
# C_2015381EN.01005903.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/59

---

Order of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Othman v Council

(Case T-595/14) (1)

1

(2015/C 381/77)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.

1

---
§ 520.812 Enrofloxacin. ( a ) *Specifications.* ( 1 ) Each tablet contains: ( i ) 22.7, 68.0, or 136.0 milligrams (mg) enrofloxacin; or
( ii ) 22.7, 68.0, 136.0, or 272 mg enrofloxacin.
( 2 ) Each chewable tablet contains 22.7, 68.0, or 136.0 mg enrofloxacin.
( 3 ) Each soft chewable tablet contains 22.7, 68.0, or 136.0 mg enrofloxacin.
( b ) *Sponsors.* See sponsor numbers in § 510.600(c) of this chapter for use as in paragraph (c) of this section. ( 1 ) No. 058198 for use of products described in paragraph (a) of this section.
( 2 ) Nos. 017033 and 086117 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.
( 3 ) Nos. 055529 and 086101 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs and cats* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer orally as a single, daily dose or divided into two equal doses at 12-hour intervals. ( i ) *Dogs.* 5 to 20 mg per kilogram (/kg) (2.27 to 9.07 mg per pound (/lb)) of body weight.
( ii ) *Cats.* 5 mg/kg (2.27 mg/lb) of body weight.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For the management of diseases associated with bacteria susceptible to enrofloxacin.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian. Federal law prohibits the extralabel use of this drug in food-producing animals.
[78 FR 30197, May 22, 2013, as amended at 78 FR 52853, Aug. 27, 2013; 84 FR 8972, Mar. 13, 2019; 84 FR 53310, Oct. 7, 2019; 86 FR 13184, Mar. 8, 2021; 87 FR 58961, Sept. 29, 2022; 88 FR 27698, May 3, 2023]
# L_2021074DE.01004301.xml

| 4.3.2021 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 74/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2021

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 74/43

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2019/27 der Kommission vom 19. Dezember 2018 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1178/2011 zur Festlegung technischer Vorschriften und von Verwaltungsverfahren in Bezug auf das fliegende Personal in der Zivilluftfahrt gemäß der Verordnung (EU) 2018/1139 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 8 vom 10. Januar 2019
  )

Seite 8, Anhang I zur Änderung von Anhang IV der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1178/2011, Abschnitt A Unterabschnitt 2 Punkt MED.A.045 Buchstabe c Nummer 2 Ziffer ii:

Anstatt:

| „ii) | ist die Gültigkeit des Tauglichkeitszeugnisses seit mehr als 2 Jahren, jedoch weniger als 5 Jahren abgelaufen, darf das flugmedizinische Zentrum oder der flugmedizinische Sachverständige die flugmedizinische Untersuchung zur Erneuerung erst nach einer Beurteilung der flugmedizinischen Akten des Bewerbers durchführen;“ |
| --- | --- |

„ii)

ist die Gültigkeit des Tauglichkeitszeugnisses seit mehr als 2 Jahren, jedoch weniger als 5 Jahren abgelaufen, darf das flugmedizinische Zentrum oder der flugmedizinische Sachverständige die flugmedizinische Untersuchung zur Erneuerung erst nach einer Beurteilung der flugmedizinischen Akten des Bewerbers durchführen;“

muss es heißen:

| „ii) | ist die Gültigkeit des Tauglichkeitszeugnisses seit mehr als 2 Jahren, jedoch weniger als 5 Jahren abgelaufen, darf das flugmedizinische Zentrum oder der flugmedizinische Sachverständige die flugmedizinische Untersuchung zur Erneuerung erst nach einer Beurteilung der flugmedizinischen Aufzeichnungen des Bewerbers durchführen;“. |
| --- | --- |

„ii)

ist die Gültigkeit des Tauglichkeitszeugnisses seit mehr als 2 Jahren, jedoch weniger als 5 Jahren abgelaufen, darf das flugmedizinische Zentrum oder der flugmedizinische Sachverständige die flugmedizinische Untersuchung zur Erneuerung erst nach einer Beurteilung der flugmedizinischen Aufzeichnungen des Bewerbers durchführen;“.

Seite 23 Anhang I zur Änderung von Anhang IV der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1178/2011, Abschnitt D Unterabschnitt 2 Punkt MED.D.035 Buchstabe a:

Anstatt:

| „a) | Sie üben ihre Tätigkeit in einem Mitgliedstaat aus, in dem Ärzte für Allgemeinmedizin Zugang zu den vollständigen medizinischen Unterlagen der Bewerber haben;“ |
| --- | --- |

„a)

Sie üben ihre Tätigkeit in einem Mitgliedstaat aus, in dem Ärzte für Allgemeinmedizin Zugang zu den vollständigen medizinischen Unterlagen der Bewerber haben;“

muss es heißen:

| „a) | Sie üben ihre Tätigkeit in einem Mitgliedstaat aus, in dem Ärzte für Allgemeinmedizin Zugang zu den vollständigen medizinischen Aufzeichnungen der Bewerber haben;“. |
| --- | --- |

„a)

Sie üben ihre Tätigkeit in einem Mitgliedstaat aus, in dem Ärzte für Allgemeinmedizin Zugang zu den vollständigen medizinischen Aufzeichnungen der Bewerber haben;“.

---