alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014135EN.01005401.xml

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/54

---

Action brought on 20 February 2014 — Kicktipp v OHIM — Società Italiana Calzature (kicktipp)

(Case T-135/14)

2014/C 135/70

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kicktipp GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, 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: Società Italiana Calzature Srl (Milan, Italy)

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 December 2013 given in Case R 1061/2012-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 December 2013 given in Case R 1061/2012-2;

| — | 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

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘kicktipp’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 35, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 8 874 281

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: Italian trademarks Nos 348 149, 905 554, 905 554 for goods in Class 25

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: 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 Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 87

To designate September 13, 1993, as ‘‘Commodore John Barry Day’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 4 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Mr. D’AMATO introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice

and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

To designate September 13, 1993, as ‘‘Commodore John

Barry Day’’.

Whereas the United States of America is a Nation of immigrants and the contributions of Irish immigrants and

their descendants to the defense of the public liberty has

been a hallmark of Irish Americans;

Whereas during the War for Independence, Captain John

Barry, a native of County Wexford, Ireland, achieved the

first victory for the Continental Navy while in command

of the ship ‘‘Lexington’’ by capturing the British Ship

‘‘Edward’’, organizing General George Washington’s

crossing of the Delaware River which led to the victory

at Trenton in 1776, transported gold from France to

America while in command of the ship ‘‘Alliance’’, and

achieved the last victory of the war for the Continental
2

SJ 87 IS

Navy while in command of ‘‘Alliance’’ by defeating the

British ship HMS ‘‘Sybille’’;

Whereas during the War for Independence, Captain John

Barry rejected British General Lord Howe’s offer to

desert the Continental Navy and join the British Navy,

stating: ‘‘Not the value and command of the whole British fleet can lure me from the cause of my country.’’;

Whereas after the War for Independence the United States

Congress recognized John Barry as the premier American naval hero of that war;

Whereas in 1787 Captain John Barry organized the compulsory attendance of members of the Pennsylvania Assembly in Philadelphia, thus ensuring the quorum necessary

to call a Convention and recommend the ratification of

the Constitution;

Whereas on June 14, 1794, pursuant to ‘‘Commission No.

1’’, President Washington commissioned John Barry as

commodore in the new United States Navy;

Whereas Commodore John Barry helped to build and lead

the new United States Navy which included his command

of the U.S.S. ‘‘United States’’ and the U.S.S. ‘‘Constitution’’ (‘‘Old Ironsides’’);

Whereas Commodore John Barry is recognized along with

General Stephen Moylan in the Statue of Liberty Museum as one of six foreign-born great leaders of the War

for Independence;

Whereas in 1991 and 1992 President George Bush proclaimed September 13 as ‘‘Commodore John Barry Day’’;

and

Whereas designating a day to commemorate Commodore

John Barry would be important to United States Navy
3

SJ 87 IS

veterans, Irish Americans, and to all the people of the

United States: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, September 13, 1993, is designated as ‘‘Commodore

4 John Barry Day’’, and the President of the United States

5 is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling

6 upon the people of the United States to observe such day

7 with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                        0000854860
<NAME>                                       Williams Controls, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000
<CURRENCY>                                   US Dollars

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-06-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                            187
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  12,514
<ALLOWANCES>                                      806
<INVENTORY>                                     9,581
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               25,874
<PP&E>                                         35,134
<DEPRECIATION>                                 13,509
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 62,813
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          19,423
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         1
<COMMON>                                          199
<OTHER-SE>                                     16,746
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   62,813
<SALES>                                        51,495
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               51,495
<CGS>                                          40,260
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  40,260
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               11,121
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,763
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,649)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (633)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,016)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,016)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)



</TABLE>
STATE OF DELAWARE
                                                              SECRETARY OF STATE
                                                        DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS
                                                       FILED 09:00 AM 03/21/2002
                                                             020187277 - 3505073

                       CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

                            KNOX MISS PARTNERS, L.P.



     THE  UNDERSIGNED,  being the General Partner of KNOX MISS PARTNERS, L.P., a
limited  partnership formed pursuant to the provisions of Title 6, Chapter 17 of
the  Delaware  Code, does hereby make this Certificate of Limited Partnership in
accordance  with Section 17-201 of the Delaware code, and does hereby certify as
follows:

     1.     The  name  which the partnership business shall be conducted is KNOX
MISS  PARTNERS,  L.P

     2.     The  address  of the partnership's registered office in the State of
Delaware  and  the  registered  agent for service of process shall be in care of
Corporation Guarantee and Trust Company, The Brandywine Building, 1000 West 17th
Floor,  in  the  City  of  Wilmington,  County  of New Castle, State of Delaware
19801.

     3.     The  name  and  place  of  business  of  the  General Partner of the
Partnership is:

                    KNOX MISS, LLC
                    One Belmont Avenue, Suite 417
                    Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004


     IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  I  have hereunto set my hand this 20th day of March,
2002.

                                         General Partner:

                                         KNOX MISS, LLC



                                         By:   "MARK  BUSH"
                                            ------------------------
                                             Mark  Bush
                                             Managing  Member


<PAGE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT MICHAEL JOHNSON,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

TOM L. CAREY and BILL LOCKYER,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 06-56738

D.C. No. CV-05-02012-JTM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Robert Michael Johnson appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We

dismiss.

FILED

MAR 10 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 06-56738

Johnson contends that the Board’s 2003 decision to deny him parole was not

supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. After

briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of

appealability (“COA”) is required to challenge the denial of parole. See Hayward

v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Now the Supreme

Court has held that the only federal right at issue in the parole context is

procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not

whether the state court decided the case correctly. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 

S. Ct. 859, 862-63 (2011). Because Johnson raises no procedural challenges, a

COA cannot issue, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

DISMISSED.
Editorial Note on Part 874
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 874 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 874.3495 Total ossicular replacement prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* A total ossicular replacement prosthesis is a device intended to be implanted for the total functional reconstruction of the ossicular chain and facilitates the conduction of sound waves from the tympanic membrance to the inner ear. The device is made of materials such as polytetrafluoroethylene, polytetrafluoroethylene with vitreous carbon fibers composite, porous polyethylene, or from a combination of these materials.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
#### § 524.1200 Kanamycin ophthalmic and topical dosage forms.
39221.

#### DAVIS v. THE STATE.

Jordan, Judge.

The defendant, under an accusation charging him with the possession of “spirituous and intoxicating liquor, to wit: NTPW,” was tried and convicted in the City Court of Sandersville. His amended motion for new trial was denied, and he excepted to that judgment. *Held:*

1. Defects in an indictment or accusation must be taken advantage of by demurrer before trial or motion in arrest of judgment after conviction; they furnish no grounds for granting a new trial. *Rucker v. State,*114 Ga. 13 (1) (39 SE 902). Accordingly, where an accusation charging the defendant with the possession of “spirituous and intoxicating liquor, to wit: NTPW” was not demurred to, and from the evidence it was abundantly clear that the defendant was being prosecuted for the possession of non-tax-paid liquor, it was not error for the trial court so' to charge the jury. *Scandrett v. State,*124 Ga. 141 (2) (52SE160).

2. Under the evidence in this case, it was not error for the trial *6court to charge the jury on the law of confessions. *Brown v. State,*74 Ga. App. 880 (41 SE2d 912).

Decided November 20, 1961

Rehearing denied December 1, 1961.

*Casey Thigpen,*for plaintiff in error.

*Thomas A. Hutcheson, Solicitor,*contra.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict and the trial court did not err in denying the amended motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
|  | · | The Company’s management is responsible for assessing the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. |
|--|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | · | The Company’s management has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.  In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB. |
|--|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | · | Based on such assessment, the Company has complied, in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. |
|--|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

|   |  DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY  |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|   | By:                                              | /s/ David Co                                                               |
|   |                                             | Name:  David Co |
|   |                                             | Its:  Director |
|   |                                             |   |
|   | By:                                              | /s/ Matt Bowen                                                               |
|   |                                             | Name:  Matt Bowen |
|   |                                             | Its:  Managing Director |
|   |                                             |   |
|   | By:                                              | /s/ Kevin Fischer                                                               |
|   |                                             | Name:  Kevin Fischer |
|   |                                             | Its:  Director |
|   | DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS  |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   | By:                                        | /s/ David Co                                                               |
|   |                                       | Name:  David Co |
|   |                                       | Its:  Director |
|   |                                       |   |
|   | By:                                        | /s/ Jenna Kaufman                                                               |
|   |                                       | Name:  Jenna Kaufman |
|   |                                       | Its:  Director |
EXHIBIT 12


               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


                                                   Six months ended June 30,
                                                    1998                1997
                                                    ----                ----

Net loss                                       $(18,398,170)       $(14,814,565)
Interest expense                                    379,711              54,102
Amortization of debt costs                          565,847                 ---
Income tax                                              ---                 ---

                                               ------------        ------------
Loss before fixed charges                       (17,452,612)        (14,760,463)

Fixed Charges (1)                                   945,558              54,102


Ratio of net loss before fixed charges to
  fixed charges                                       (18.5)             (272.8)

Deficiency of earnings to cover fixed
  charges                                      $(18,398,170)       $(14,814,565)


                                       12
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.2

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                          SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT

         Reference is hereby made to the Securities Purchase Agreement (the
"AGREEMENT") made and entered into as of December 13, 2002, by and among
netGuru, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "COMPANY") and Laurus Master Fund,
Ltd., a Cayman Islands company (the "PURCHASER"). Terms used herein and not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.

         WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend Section 8.4 of the Agreement; and

         WHEREAS, in consideration of their mutual promises and covenants set
forth herein and in the Agreement, and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereto agree as follows:

         1. Pursuant to Section 12.6 of the Agreement, and effective as of
December 13, 2002, the parties amend and restate Section 8.4 of the Agreement in
its entirety as follows:

         8.4 NASDAQ APPROVAL. The Company and the Purchaser agree that, until
the Company either obtains shareholder approval of the issuance of the
Securities, or an exemption from NASDAQ's corporate governance rules as they may
apply to the Securities, and an opinion of counsel reasonably acceptable to the
Purchaser that NASDAQ's corporate governance rules do not conflict with nor may
result in a delisting of the Company's common stock from the NASDAQ National
Market (the "APPROVAL") upon the conversion of the Notes or the exercise of the
Warrant, the Purchaser may not receive, whether upon conversion of the Notes or
upon exercise of the Warrant, more than the number of common shares that would
increase the Purchaser's total holdings of the Company's common stock to greater
than 19.9% of the shares of Company's common stock outstanding on the Closing
Date. The Company covenants to attempt to obtain the Approval required pursuant
to NASDAQ's corporate governance rules to allow conversion of all the Notes and
interest thereon upon written request of the Purchaser (the "TRIGGER DATE"). The
Company further covenants to file the preliminary proxy statement relating to
the Approval with the Commission on or before thirty days after the Trigger Date
("PROXY FILING DATE"). The Company further covenants to take all steps necessary
to require shareholders to vote on the Approval no later than ninety days after
the Trigger Date ("APPROVAL DATE").

         2. There are no other modifications to the Agreement.

Dated:   March 19, 2003                       March 19, 2003

AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED                        AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED
BY NETGURU, INC.                              BY LAURUS MASTER FUND, LTD.

By: /s/ Jyoti Chatterjee                      By: /s/ David Grin
    -------------------------------               ------------------------------
Name:  Jyoti Chatterjee                           Name:  David Grin
Title: President                                  Title: Director
# C_2014129EN.01001101.xml

| 28.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 January 2014 — BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH v Bodo Scholz

(Case C-20/14)

(2014/C 129/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH

Defendant: Bodo Scholz

Question referred

Must Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of identical and similar goods and services, there may be taken to be a likelihood of confusion for the public if a distinctive sequence of letters which dominates the earlier word/figurative trade mark of average distinctiveness is made use of in a third party’s later mark in such a way that the sequence of letters is supplemented by a descriptive combination of words relating to it which explains the sequence of latters as an abbreviation of the descriptive words?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks; OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.

---
§ 884.2960 Obstetric ultrasonic transducer and accessories. ( a ) *Identification.* An obstetric ultrasonic transducer is a device used to apply ultrasonic energy to, and to receive ultrasonic energy from, the body in conjunction with an obstetric monitor or imager. The device converts electrical signals into ultrasonic energy, and vice versa, by means of an assembly distinct from an ultrasonic generator. This generic type of device may include the following accessories: coupling gel, preamplifiers, amplifiers, signal conditioners with their power supply, connecting cables, and component parts. This generic type of device does not include devices used to generate the ultrasonic frequency electrical signals for application.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 10.33

Confidential portions of this document indicated by ***** have been omitted and
                      filed separately with the Commission

TIFTON ALUMINUM COMPANY, INC.
P O Box 188
142 Tifton Drive
Delhi LA 71232

August 5, 2002

Mr. Gary Ihrke
V.P Operations
Featherlite Trailers
P O Box 320
Cresco IA 52136

Dear Gary,

This letter will serve as confirmation of our agreement finalized today. ALCOA
has purchased, with your authorization, ***** pounds of aluminum for your
extrusion needs during the 1st quarter of 2003. The extrusions will be purchased
and delivered from our Yankton plant at a base price of ***** per pound on solid
shapes, and ***** per pound on hollow shapes. As per our previous agreements,
any side panels will require a ***** adder. All other adders will apply
consistent with our current agreements. All prices include delivery to Cresco,
IA. Featherlite will provide payment for each truckload via wire transfer at
point of shipment. We are reserving ***** pounds per week to support your
program. The prices and tonnage stated above are firm, as metal has been secured
to cover this contract. Thanks again for your business.


Yours truly,
Herb Grubbs
Regional Sales Manager

cc: Jan Mauch, Yankton
    Brian Plunk, Plant City
    File