alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014235EN.01002302.xml

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/23

---

Action brought on 16 April 2014 — Masafi v OHIM — Hd1 (masafi)

(Case T-249/14)

2014/C 235/32

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Masafi Co. LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez, 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: Hd1 Ltd (Huddersfield, United Kingdom)

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 Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 February 2014 given in Case R 1131/2013-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 February 2014 given in Case R 1131/2013-4;

| — | Order the other party to the proceedings, should it intervene, to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the other party to the proceedings, should it intervene, to pay the costs of the 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 figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal element ‘masafi’ for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32

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: The United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 5 51  560for the word ‘masafi’

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) CTMR

Pleas in law:

---
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7800 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7800

   To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a single, 
               unique ZIP Code for Scotland, Connecticut.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2024

 Mr. Courtney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a single, 
               unique ZIP Code for Scotland, Connecticut.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SINGLE, UNIQUE ZIP CODE FOR SCOTLAND, CONNECTICUT.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the United States Postal Service shall designate a single, unique ZIP 
Code, to be numbered 06264, applicable to the area encompassing solely 
Scotland, Connecticut.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

# AGENCY:

Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        The purpose of this notice is to update the 2010 Labor Surplus Areas annual list published in the                         **Federal Register**                        , Vol. 74, No. 209, Friday, October 30, 2009, pages 56217-56239.                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         The update of the annual list of labor surplus areas is effective immediately for all states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Samuel Wright, Office of Workforce Investment, Employment and Training Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-4231, Washington, DC 20210.                         *Telephone:*                         (202) 693-2870 (This is not a toll-free number).                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    For supplementary, eligibility, classification procedures and petition for exceptional circumstances procedure information refer to the original 2010 Labor Surplus Area list at                     *http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/​2009/​pdf/​E9-26165.pdf.*

Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of February 2010.

Jane Oates,

Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training Administration.

[FR Doc. 2010-4465 Filed 3-3-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FT-P
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.4215 Clip rack. ( a ) *Identification.* A clip rack is a device used to hold or store surgical clips during surgery.
( 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 § 882.9.
[44 FR 51730, Sept. 4, 1979, as amended at 54 FR 25051, June 12, 1989; 59 FR 63012, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38808, July 25, 2001]
# C_2014351EN.01002801.xml

| 6.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/28

---

Action brought on 12 August 2014 — Bice International v OHIM — Bice (bice)

(Case T-624/14)

2014/C 351/36

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bice International Ltd (Dubai, United Arabs Emirates) (represented by: N. Gibb, Solicitor)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bice AG (Baar, Switzerland)

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 23 May 2014 given in Case R 1249/2013-1. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 May 2014 given in Case R 1249/2013-1.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘bice’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 30 and 43 — Community trade mark registration No 5 1 26  693

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: It was alleged that the CTM application was filed in bad faith, within the meaning of Article 52(1)(b) CTMR and registered in breach of Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) CTMR

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for invalidity in its entirety

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 52(1)(b), 53(1)(a) in conjunction with 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.5050 Biofeedback device. ( a ) *Identification.* A biofeedback device is an instrument that provides a visual or auditory signal corresponding to the status of one or more of a patient's physiological parameters (e.g., brain alpha wave activity, muscle activity, skin temperature, etc.) so that the patient can control voluntarily these physiological parameters.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter when it is a prescription battery powered device that is indicated for relaxation training and muscle reeducation and prescription use, subject to § 882.9.
[44 FR 51730, Sept. 4, 1979, as amended at 63 FR 59229, Nov. 3, 1998]
#### J. V. Mileris, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfred G. Miller, Delores M. Miller, Peters Van and Storage Company, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, and F. P. Peters, Defendants-Appellants, and Alfred G. Miller and Delores M. Miller, Counter-Plaintiffs, v. J. V. Mileris, Peters Van and Storage Company, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, F. P. Peters and Elmer E. Peterson, Counter-Defendants, and Alfred G. Miller and Delores M. Miller, Third Party Plaintiffs, v. Elmer E. Peterson, Third Party Defendant.

Gen. No. 68-148.

Second District.

March 17, 1969.

Carbary, Carbary & Chapski, of Elgin, for appellants; Dreyer, Foote & Streit, and Goldsmith, Dyer, Thelin & Schiller, of Aurora, and Anthony F. Donat, of Batavia, for appellees.

Opinion by

JUSTICE SEIDENFELD.

Not to be published in full.
§ 884.4550 Gynecologic surgical laser. ( a ) *Identification.* A gynecologic surgical laser is a continuous wave carbon dioxide laser designed to destroy tissue thermally or to remove tissue by radiant light energy. The device is used only in conjunction with a colposcope as part of a gynecological surgical system. A colposcope is a magnifying lens system used to examine the vagina and cervix.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**








SECTION
      1350 CERTIFICATION





I,
      Julie Smolyansky, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
      Quarterly Report of Lifeway Foods, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for three
      month period ended June 30, 2007:





(1)
      fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





This
      written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      as an exhibit to such Form 10-QSB. A signed original of this written statement
      required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be
      retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.










Date:   August
                  14,
                  2007
              
              /s/ Julie
                SmolyanskyJulie
                SmolyanskyChief
                  Executive Officer, President, and Director
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 15

- 00531

- CV
JUAN DAVID ORTIZ, IN DIVIDUALLY; AND MARI A ACIANA SAENZ, INDI VIDUALLY v. RICARDO ORTIZ AND YO LANDA ORTIZ ALANIZ

On Appeal from the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. C

- 6421

- 13

- B

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant s

. We fu rther order this decision certified below for observance. December 10, 2015
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Allstate Texas Lloyds

Appellate case number: 01-21-00428-CV

Trial court case number: 1156670

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County

Relator, Allstate Texas Lloyds, filed a mandamus petition on August 6, 2021, challenging: 

(1) the trial court’s May 13, 20201 Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Compel and (2) the trial 

court’s July 29, 2021 order denying Relator’s motion to reconsider. On August 11, 2021, Relator 

filed an emergency motion requesting a stay of all proceedings in the underlying case pending our 

determination on the mandamus petition. Relator’s stay motion is DENIED. Relator’s mandamus 

petition remains pending.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Gordon Goodman______

Acting individually 

Date: ___August 12, 2021_____
November 18 th , 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 Mr. Michael Cameron: Below, please find the requested missing information from Docket No. FAA - 2015 - 3849. The aircraft make and model, with additional information, that Sky Guardian Entertainment, LLC will be using is the: DJI , Inc. made **Phantom 3 Professional** It is a multi - rotor type of UAS, weighing 1280 g (2.66 pounds) The maximum speed is 16 m/s (35 mph) and will be operated well under that speed The maximum weight with payload cannot exceed 6 pound More information can be found at: https://www.dji.com/product/phantom - 3 Thank you for your time and consideration, and please let me know if y o u have any further questions Sincerel y, 

## Ian M. Emerich

- Honauer Ian M. Emerich - Honauer Founder Sky Guardian Entertainment, LLC
# C_2014395EN.01005501.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/55

---

Action brought on 29 August 2014 — NTS Energie- und Transportsysteme v OHIM — Schütz (X-Windwerk)

(Case T-649/14)

(2014/C 395/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: NTS Energie- und Transportsysteme GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Mach, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Schütz GmbH & Co. KGaA (Selters, Germany)

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 23 May 2014 in Case R 978/2013-1

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘X-Windwerk’ for services in Classes 39, 40 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 10 719 466

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘Wind Werk’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 37 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Opposition Division’s decision was annulled and the application for the Community trade mark was rejected

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

---
# C_2014142EN.01003701.xml

| 12.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/37

---

Action brought on 14 February 2014 — Universal Utility International v OHIM (Greenworld)

(Case T-106/14)

2014/C 142/48

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Universal Utility International GmbH & Co. KG (Kaarst, Germany) (represented by J. Mietzel, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

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 13 December 2013 in Case R 1658/2013-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 December 2013 in Case R 1658/2013-4;

| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it upheld the refusal of the application for the services in classes 35 and 39; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it upheld the refusal of the application for the services in classes 35 and 39;

| — | in the further alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it upheld the refusal of the application for the services in class 35; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it upheld the refusal of the application for the services in class 35;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark Greenworld for goods and services in Classes 4, 35 and 39 — Community trade mark application No 11 616 588

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Application refused

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Pleas in law:

| — | Breach of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94

| — | Breach of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94

---
38897.

#### INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY *et al.*v. O’NEAL.

Decided September 6, 1961.

*306
      *II. A. Stephens, Jr., Dent Aeree, Smith, Field,, Binged, Martin & Carr, Richard D. Carr,*for plaintiff in error.

*Albert E. Butler,*contra.

Eberhardt, Judge.

It is well settled that the filing of a claim for compensation within the time required by *Code*§ 114-305 with the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation is jurisdictional, and unless it be shown that some fraud was practiced upon the employee that prevented his filing within the statutory time, the claim is barred. *Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Anderson,*96 Ga. App. 509 (1) (100 SE2d 611); *Patterson v. Employer’s Mut. Liab. Ins. Co.,*99 Ga. App. 325 (108 SE2d 146).

If it be shown that fraud was practiced upon the employee by the employer, or his insurance carrier, and that such fraud prevented the timely filing of the claim with the board, the statute will be tolled if the employee acts, in the filing of his claim, promptly upon the discovery of the fraud. *Welchel v. American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co.,*54 Ga. App. 511 (3) (188 SE 357).

To constitute fraud more is necessary than a mere reliance *307by the employee upon a statement by her immediate superior that she would be “taken care of.”

The determination of whether the conduct or representations of the employer were such as to prevent the filing of a timely claim by the employee with the board, and thus amount to the practice of a fraud upon her, is a factual one. A determination of such question, if supported by any competent evidence, is binding upon the courts, and the superior court may not, because it does not agree with the findings of the director or of the board, set them aside. *Department of Revenue v. Graham,*102 Ga. App. 756 (117 SE2d 902), and many others to the same effect. Here the director made a finding, from the evidence, that the employee was not so prevented from filing her claim within the statutory period, and there was competent evidence in the record upon which to base the finding. Such finding was binding and conclusive upon the court, and it was error to set it aside.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Nichols, J., concur.*
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.18


                                                                    May 28, 1999
                                                             Bothell, Washington



$100,000


                          FULL RECOURSE PROMISSORY NOTE


         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, receipt of which the undersigned hereby
acknowledges, the undersigned, ______________ ("MAKER"), hereby promises to pay
to VIXEL CORPORATION (the "COMPANY"), the principal sum of one hundred thousand
dollars ($100,000), plus interest at the rate of five and three quarters percent
(5.75%) per annum from the date hereof until the full amount of principal and
interest is paid in full in lawful money of the United States of America.
Interest shall be payable annually.

         The entire amount of unpaid principal of this Note, plus all accrued
interest, shall be due and payable on the earlier of (i) six (6) months after
termination or cessation of Maker's services to the Company, or (ii) May 28,
2003.

         This Note is delivered in connection with Maker's purchase of
twenty-five thousand (25,000) shares of Common Stock of the Company (the
"SHARES") pursuant to that certain Stock Purchase Agreement by and between Maker
and the Company of even date herewith (the "PURCHASE AGREEMENT"). This Note is
full recourse.

         All installments of principal and accrued interest shall be accelerated
and come due six (6) months after the date of termination of Maker's service to
the Company. In addition, upon the sale, pledge or other transfer by Maker of
any of the Shares purchased by Maker pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, all
accrued interest and a portion of the principal amount hereof shall thereupon
become immediately due and payable, such that the remaining principal amount not
then due shall be equal to the product of $4.00 times the number of Shares
remaining owned by Maker following that sale, pledge or other transfer.

         Amounts, if any, owed to Maker by the Company may be offset against
accrued interest and principal hereunder.

         All payments and offsets shall be credited first against accrued
interest to the date of the payment and thereafter to reduce the outstanding
principal amount hereof.



                                       1.
<PAGE>   2


         Maker reserves the right to prepay the sums due hereunder in whole or
in part without premium or penalty. Maker hereby waives demand, protest,
presentment and notice of non-payment, and shall pay reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred by Company in connection with the
collection or enforcement of the indebtedness represented hereby.



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









                                       2.