alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014061EN.01001901.xml

| 1.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/19

---

Action brought on 8 January 2014 — NetMed v OHIM — Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik (SANDTER 1953)

(Case T-21/14)

2014/C 61/34

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: NetMed Sàrl (Wasserbillig, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Schafhaus, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik GmbH (Baden-Baden, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 October 2013 in Case R 1846/2012-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 October 2013 in Case R 1846/2012-1;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs including those incurred in the appeal and opposition proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs including those incurred in the appeal and opposition proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SANDTER 1953’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 10 — Community trade mark application No 9 448 887

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik GmbH

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘Sander’ for goods in Classes 5, 10 and 25; the international figurative mark with protection in the Benelux countries, Austria and France which includes the word element ‘SANDER’, for goods in Classes 5, 10 and 25

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23A
 
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS
 
     We hereby consent to the use of our name in "Item 2. Properties," "Item 7.
Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operation," and "Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data" of the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Seven Seas Petroleum Inc. (the "Company") for the
year ended December 31, 1998 (the "Form 10-K").
 
                                            /s/ RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
                                              PETROLEUM ENGINEERS
 
                                            RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
                                            PETROLEUM ENGINEERS
 
March 26, 1999
 
                                       65
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The accompanying Quarterly
 Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2010 fully complies with
 the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
 1934; and
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                
|(2) | The information contained
 in the accompanying Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
 financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                            

|      |                    |                                  | 
|----- | ------------------ | -------------------------------- | 
|Date: | September 14, 2010 | /s/ Rodney A. Young              | 
|      |                    | President and                    | 
|      |                    | Chief Executive Officer          | 
|      |                    |                                  | 
|Date: | September 14, 2010 | /s/ Larry R. Degen               | 
|      |                    | Interim Chief Financial
 Officer | 

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,523,697
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,132,797
<ALLOWANCES>                                   219,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,372,491
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,937,076
<PP&E>                                       6,640,361
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,661,723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,538,361
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,642,980
<BONDS>                                      3,960,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           313
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,616,738
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,538,361
<SALES>                                        625,254
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               649,501
<CGS>                                          663,185
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  663,185
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,495,372
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,930
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,530,986)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,530,986)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,530,986)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2015381EN.01003602.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/36

---

Order of the General Court of 17 July 2015 — EEB v Commission

(Case T-685/14) (1)

1

((Environment - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Commission decision concerning the notification by Bulgaria of a transitional national plan as referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions - Refusal of internal review - Measure of individual scope - Aarhus Convention - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Lateness - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any foundation in law))

(2015/C 381/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Podskalská, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin, S. Petrova and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2002 final of 31 March 2014 on the notification by the Republic of Bulgaria of a transitional national plan referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU, on industrial emissions, and, secondly, for annulment of the Commission Decision of 11 July 2014 (Ares (2014) 2317513) declaring inadmissible the applicant’s request that the Commission review its decision of 31 March 2014.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | European Environmental Bureau (EEB) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

European Environmental Bureau (EEB) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | EEB, the Commission, the Parliament and the Council shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

EEB, the Commission, the Parliament and the Council shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.

1

---
[LETTERHEAD OF SILVERMAN, CHERNIS, SHIN & BYRNE, P.C.]

                                              June 29, 2001

ATEC Group, Inc.
69 Mall Drive
Commack, New York 11725

      Re:   Registration Statement on Form S-3

Gentlemen:

      We have acted as counsel to ATEC Group, Inc. (the "Company"), a Delaware
corporation, pursuant to Registration Statement on Form S-3, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2001 (the "Registration
Statement") covering 105,000 shares issuable upon conversion of our series J
preferred stock.

      In acting as counsel for the Company and arriving at the opinions as
expressed below, we have examined and relied upon originals or copies, certified
or otherwise identified to our satisfaction, of such records of the Company,
agreements and other instruments, certificates of officers and representatives
of the Company, certificates of public officials and other documents as we have
deemed necessary or appropriate as a basis for the opinions expressed herein.

      In connection with our examination we have assumed the genuineness of all
signatures, the authenticity of all documents tendered to us as originals, the
legal capacity of natural persons and the conformity to original documents of
all documents submitted to us as certified or photostated copies.

      Based on the foregoing, and subject to the qualifications and limitations
set forth herein, it is our opinion that:


<PAGE>

            1. The Company has authority to issue the Common Stock in the manner
and under the terms set forth in the Registration Statement.

            2. The Common Stock has been duly authorized and when issued,
delivered and paid for in accordance with their respective terms, will be
validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable.

      We express no opinion with respect to the laws other than those of the
State of New York and federal laws of the United States of America, and we
assume no responsibility as to the applicability thereto, or the effect thereon,
of the laws of any other jurisdiction.

      We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as Exhibit 5.1 to the
Registration Statement and its use as part of the Registration Statement.

      We are furnishing this opinion to the Company solely for its benefit in
connection with the Registration Statement. It is not to be used, circulated,
quoted or otherwise referred to for any other purpose. Other than the Company,
no one is entitled to rely on this opinion.

                                         Very truly yours,

                                         SILVERMAN,  CHERNIS, SHIN & BYRNE, P.C.
# C_2019082EN.01002901.xml

| 4.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Niche Generics v Commission

(Case T-701/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for perindopril, a medicinal product intended for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases, in its originator and generic versions - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Patent dispute settlement agreement - Administrative procedure - Legal professional privilege protecting communications between lawyers and their clients - Potential competition - Restriction of competition by object - Objective necessity of the restriction - Balance between competition law and patent law - Conditions for exemption under Article 101(3) TFEU - Fines - 10 % cap - Imputation of the unlawful conduct))

(2019/C 82/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Niche Generics Ltd (Hitchin, United Kingdom) (represented by E. Batchelor, M. Healy, K. Cousins, Solicitors, and F. Carlin, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi and B. Mongin, and subsequently by F. Castilla Contreras, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by S. Kingston, Barrister-at-law)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 and Article 102 TFEU [Case AT.39612 — Perindopril (Servier)] in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Niche Generics Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Niche Generics Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.

---
|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the      Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  |  November      14 , 2008 |   | By:    |  /s/      Julie Smolyansky                                                      |   |
|--------|-------------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                          |   |   |  Julie      Smolyanky Chief      Executive Officer, President and Director |   |
# C_2014135EN.01004802.xml

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/48

---

Action brought on 7 February 2014 — Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL)

(Case T-85/14)

2014/C 135/62

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio e Indústria, Lda (Luanda, Angola) (represented by: A. Oliveira, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV (Berlin, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 November 2013 given in Case R 1106/2012-2. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 November 2013 given in Case R 1106/2012-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘DINKOOL’ for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 11 — Community trade mark application No 9 768 061

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration No 229 048 of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘DIN’ for goods in Classes 1 to 34 and an earlier non-registered word mark ‘DIN’ in Germany

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Granted the appeal, annulled the contested decision and rejected the contested Community trade mark application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(4) and 8(5) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
- USGS Home
- Contact						   USGS
- Search 
USGS

- mobile menu barsUSGS Publications Warehouse
    Contact
    Explore recent publications 
    by USGS							   Authors
    Browse all of Pubs Warehouse 
    by							   Publication type and year
    FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US 
    Geological Survey Report							   Series
- USGS Publications Warehouse
- Contact
- Explore recent publications 
    by USGS							   Authors
- Browse all of Pubs Warehouse 
    by							   Publication type and year
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US 
    Geological Survey Report							   Series

- USGS Publications 
  Warehouse
- Explore					    
  Explore recent publications 
    by USGS							   Authors
    Browse all of Pubs Warehouse 
    by							   Publication type and year
- Explore recent publications 
    by USGS							   Authors
- Browse all of Pubs Warehouse 
    by							   Publication type and year
- Documentation					    
  FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US 
    Geological Survey Report							   Series
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US 
    Geological Survey Report							   Series
- Contact

### The Mother lode system of California

#### Professional Paper 157

Tweet


#### Links

- Document: **Document**                                 
  (14646 pdf)
- Plate: **Plate 
  2**                                 (7747 pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS

#### Abstract

#### Additional publication details

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it 
is recommended that you download the documents to your computer and open them 
with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your browser may not display or 
print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe 
Reader, free of charge. More information about viewing, downloading, and 
printing report files can be found here.

Accessibility
				    FOIA				    Privacy				    Policies and					   
Notices

U.S. Department of the					   Interior |				    
U.S. Geological 
Survey				   URL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp157 
                    				   Page Contact Information: Pubs 
Warehouse Contact				   Page				   Page Last Modified: February 02, 2012 
00:10:35
Editorial Note on Part 874
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 874 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 874.3305 Wireless air-conduction hearing aid. ( a ) *Identification.* A wireless air-conduction hearing aid is a wearable sound-amplifying device, intended to compensate for impaired hearing that incorporates wireless technology in its programming or use. A wireless air-conduction hearing aid is subject to the requirements in § 800.30 or § 801.422 of this chapter, as applicable.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) Performance data must demonstrate the electromagnetic compatibility (EMC), electrical safety, and thermal safety of the device;
( 2 ) Performance testing must validate safety of exposure to non-ionizing radiation; and
( 3 ) Performance data must validate wireless technology functions.
( c ) *Premarket notification.* The wireless air-conduction hearing aid is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 874.9.
[76 FR 34846, June 15, 2011, as amended at 87 FR 50762, Aug. 17, 2022]
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0001114 18-MAR-2015 08:25 AM
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No

. 20 1 60 0 373

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v. 

### JOSE R. SALAZAR Corporal (E

- 4 ), U

. S

. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________ Appeal f rom the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Colonel James K. Carberry, USMC. Convening Authority: Commanding General, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA

. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Lieutenant Colonel

M atthew J. Stewart
, USMC

. For Appellant : Commander Suzanne M. Lachelier, JAGC, USN

.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ Decided 2 3 February 2017

_________________________ Before C AMPBELL , R UGH , and H UTCHISON , Appellate Military Judges

_____ ____________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For th e Court

R.H. TR O IDL Clerk of Court
#### § 600.21 Time of inspection.

The inspection of an establishment for which a biologics license application is pending need not be made until the establishment is in operation and is manufacturing the complete product for which a biologics license is desired.

[38 FR 32048, Nov. 20, 1973, as amended at 48 FR 26314, June 7, 1983; 64 FR 56449, Oct. 20, 1999; 84 FR 12508, Apr. 2, 2019]