alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014361EN.01001401.xml

| 13.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/14

---

Action brought on 30 July 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO PROTEINREICHER PFLANZENKOMPLEX AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG)

(Case T-571/14)

2014/C 361/18

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

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 27 May 2014 in case R 125/2014-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 May 2014 in case R 125/2014-4;

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark which contains the word elements ‘BIO PROTEINREICHER PFLANZENKOMPLEX AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 9 22  911

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Misuse of powers by a decision on the basis of competition policy considerations |
| --- | --- |

—

Misuse of powers by a decision on the basis of competition policy considerations

---
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.1040 Ocular esthesiometer. ( a ) *Identification.* An ocular esthesiometer is a device, such as a single-hair brush, intended to touch the cornea to assess corneal sensitivity.
( 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 § 886.9.
[52 FR 33355, Sept. 2, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 35603, Sept. 14, 1988; 59 FR 63012, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38809, July 25, 2001]
#### § 1.164-7 Taxes of shareholder paid by corporation.

Banks and other corporations paying taxes assessed against their shareholders on account of their ownership of the shares of stock issued by such corporations without reimbursement from such shareholders may deduct the amount of taxes so paid. In such cases no deduction shall be allowed to the shareholders for such taxes. The amount so paid should not be included in the gross income of the shareholder.
# C_2014388EN.01002102.xml

| 3.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 388/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 388/21

---

Action brought on 8 September 2014 — Revolution v OHIM (REVOLUTION)

(Case T-654/14)

2014/C 388/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Revolution LLC (Washington, United States) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

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 11 June 2014 given in Case R 2143/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 June 2014 given in Case R 2143/2013-1;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The work mark ‘REVOLUTION’ for services in Class 36 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 8 15  297

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application for CTM registration

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of the Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
**Exhibit 35.2**

 

**Servicer Compliance Statement of Deere Credit Services, Inc.**

 

I, Cory J. Reed, President of Deere Credit Services, Inc., certify:

 

A review of Deere Credit Services, Inc.’s activities for the period from November 1, 2015 through October 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”) and of Deere Credit Services, Inc.’s performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 9, 2015 among John Deere Capital Corporation, John Deere Receivables, Inc. and John Deere Owner Trust 2015-B has been made under my supervision, and to the best of my knowledge based on such review, Deere Credit Services, Inc. has fulfilled all its obligations under all relevant agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 
| Date: January 12,   2017 | Deere Credit   Services, Inc. |
|-------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                          |                               |
|                          |                               |
|                          | By                                 | */s/ Cory J. Reed* |   |
|                          |                               | Cory J. Reed |
|                          |                               | President |

 

----
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      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 subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the three months
of which the quarterly report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the three months covered by this
quarterly report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants three months
then ended that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  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; andb)
    
    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.
 Date: August 14, 2006/s/ Daniel J. Regan

Daniel J. ReganVice President andChief Financial OfficerGreat Western Land and Recreation, Inc.
# C_2014245EN.01001601.xml

| 28.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/16

---

Action brought on 3 April 2014 — Klement v OHIM — Bullerjan (Form of an oven)

(Case T-211/14)

2014/C 245/22

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Toni Klement (Dippolddiswalde, Germany) (represented by: J. Weiser, 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: Bullerjan GmbH (Isernhagen-Kirchhorst, 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:

| — | Alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 January 2014 in Case R 927/2013-1, so that the appeal brought by the applicant is upheld and CTM 3 7 23  822 is revoked in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

Alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 January 2014 in Case R 927/2013-1, so that the appeal brought by the applicant is upheld and CTM 3 7 23  822 is revoked in its entirety;

| — | In the alternative, annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, annul the contested decision;

| — | Order OHIM, and as the case may be, the CTM proprietor/possible intervener to pay the costs for these proceedings and of the appeal procedure before OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM, and as the case may be, the CTM proprietor/possible intervener to pay the costs for these proceedings and of the appeal procedure before OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: Three-dimensional mark representing an oven for goods in Class 11 — Community trade mark registration No 3 7 23  822

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made:

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

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for revocation

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 Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                         0000854858
<NAME>                                        Ajay Sports, Inc. & Subs.
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                                    US Dollars 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         118
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,004  
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                  6,999    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,264
<PP&E>                                       2,905    
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,114  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,713
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,790
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        2,962    
<PREFERRED>                                  1,250    
<COMMON>                                       233  
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,621
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,713
<SALES>                                      6,854  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,854
<CGS>                                        6,248  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,248  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             330
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (996)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (996)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (996)   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (0.05)
        



</TABLE>
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ebix, Inc. (the “Company”) for the periodended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Robin Raina, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2. The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| By:                              | /s/ Sean Donaghy |   |
|----------------------------------|------------------|--------|
|                             |             |   |
| Name:                            | Sean Donaghy     |   |
|                             |             |   |
| Interim Chief Accounting Officer |             |   |
|                             |             |   |
| August 10, 2007                  |             |   |
|                                  |                  |        |  |  |

 

 

----
#### Cutler Homes, Inc., v. Di Marco, Jr., et al.

*E. Unterberger,*for plaintiff.

*S. Finestone,*for defendants.

April 7, 1952.

Flood, J.,

This is a motion to take off a compulsory nonsuit. Plaintiff is a builder of homes and defendants are subcontractors specializing in excavating, grading, filling and stone work. Defendants signed, sealed, and delivered to plaintiff an extensive printed contract in which defendants promised to do the excavating, grading, filling and stone work in a project plaintiff was then developing. Several months later, on November 13, 1947, plaintiff signed and sealed the contract. On November 15,1947, plaintiff allegedly mailed to defendants a letter notifying them of the execution of the contract and demanding performance on November 17, 1947, which was the earlest day the letter would have arrived in the normal course. On November 18, 1947, plaintiff engaged another subcontractor at a higher figure to do the work covered by defendants’ contract. Neither the original letter of November 15th, nor a carbon copy of the letter was introduced into evidence. Plaintiff’s chief witness *122offered a form of letter which was prepared from his recollection of what his father, the president of the corporation, had dictated to the stenographer. Defendants had denied in their pleadings that they had received such a letter and persisted in such denial at the trial.

It was incumbent upon plaintiff to prove the existence of a contract and a default thereunder. Delivery to defendants of the purported letter of November 15th was necessary to serve as notification of acceptance necessary to the formation of the contract (A. L. I. Restatement of the Law of Contracts §§52, 67) if the contract be viewed as an informal contract. However, the alleged contract is a formal one under seal. Except for the letter, there is no evidence of delivery of the contract by plaintiff. Without delivery by plaintiff the instrument is not effective as a sealed instrument. While we have seen no Pennsylvania cases on this point, we think that the proper rule is that if both parties purport to make promises in the instrument, it is ordinarily true that neither one intends to be bound by it until it is sealed and delivered by the other party also: 1 Corbin on Contracts, §245.

Whether or not the contract is formal it was necessary for plaintiff to show a demand for performance at a specific time as no such time was provided for in the contract and no repudiation by defendants subsequent to November 13, 1947, has been shown: 5 Willis-ton on Contracts, §1319.

Plaintiff’s only witness knew nothing more than that the letter was given to the stenographer for mailing. He could not testify that it was mailed. The stenographer was not called. Since defendant has denied receiving the letter, it is clear that plaintiff has not proved the case it has alleged and the trial judge rightly nonsuited it.

Motion denied.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       AND ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Emrise
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report"),
the undersigned hereby certify in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: May 16, 2005                           By: /S/ CARMINE T. OLIVA
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Carmine T. Oliva
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  (principal executive officer)


Dated: May 16, 2005                           By: /S/ CARMINE T. OLIVA
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Carmine T. Oliva
                                                  Acting Chief Financial Officer
                                                  (principal financial officer)

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version 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.
Air Transport Association

1301 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20004

202 626

- 4012

October 17 , 2011

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

400 7 th Street SW, Plaza 401

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Exemption No. 5400 I , (Do cket No. FAA

- 2001

- 10676 )

Dear Sir or Madam:

In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, 14 CFR § 11.8 1 , the Air Transport

Association of America 1 (ATA) on behalf of its member airlines and other similarly

situated Part 121 certificate holders, petitions fo r an extension of Exemption No . 5400 I

(Docket No. FAA

- 2001

- 10676 ). T his exemption will expire on Januar y 31, 2012

.

Exemption No. 5400I permits ATA member airlines and other similarly situated Part 121

air carriers to use a Phase II (Level C) simulator for pilot i n command (PIC) training and

checking in accordance with the requirements of Part 121, Appendix H, amended

, provide d certain conditions and limitations are met . A lso, under the terms of the

exemption, upgrade training and the certification check required b y 14 CFR § 61.157 can

be accomplished in a Phase II simulator.

The conditions and circumstances, in regard to public interest and equivalent levels of

safety, which warranted the original grant of exemption, continue to exist. This

exemption and its pr edecessor s , Exemption No. 5400 , have been in use for almost 18

years wit h no known compromise of safety.

The renewal of this exemption is not a controversial issue. ATA believes that there is

just cause to waive the requirement of public notice of this p etition. There is no

substantial change to the exemption and the renewal of this exemption is not precedent

1 The Member airlines are: Air Tran Airways, Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, ASTAR Air Cargo, Atlas

Air, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Evergreen International Airlines, Federal Express, Hawaiian

Airlines, JetBlue Airways, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, United Parcel Service , Co. , and US

Airways. The Associate membe rs are: Air Canada and Air Jamaica

.setting , therefore, ATA requests that publication in the Federal Register be waived as

unnecessary.

A summ ary of this petition is included (Attach ment 1) as required by 14 CFR § 11.81

.

If any further information is required , please call me at 202

- 626

- 4012

Sincerely,

/S/

Paul W. Railsback

Director

– Operations

Air Transport Association

1301 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Suite 1100

Washington, DC 200004

Atta chment 1 : Summary of Petition

### Attachment 1

October 17 , 2012

Docket No. FAA

- 2001

- 10676



### Summary of ATA Petition

Petitioner: Air Transport Association of America (ATA)

Regulation Affected: 14 CFR § 61.157

14 CFR § 1 21 Appendix H

Description of Relief Sought : Renew Exemption 5400I with no other changes to the

existing terms except to extend its termination date.

This allows Part 121 operators to use a Phase II (Level

C) simulator for pilot in command (PIC) training and

checking in accordance with the require ments of Part

121, appendix H, provided certain conditions and

limitations are met.