alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014448EN.01003701.xml

| 15.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 448/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/37

---

Action brought on 27 October 2014 — Hersill v OHIM — KCI Licensing (VACUP)

(Case T-741/14)

(2014/C 448/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hersill, SL (Móstoles, Spain) (represented by: M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: KCI Licensing, Inc. (San Antonio, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community trade mark application No 9 9 43  499

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 August 2014 in Case R 1520/2013-2

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present appeal as well founded and annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present appeal as well founded and annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should they appear as parties in the present process, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should they appear as parties in the present process, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Rule 22(3) of Regulation No 2868/95; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Rule 22(3) of Regulation No 2868/95;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
§ 1.362-1 Basis to corporations. ( a ) *In general.* Section 362 provides, as a general rule, that if property was acquired on or after June 22, 1954, by a corporation ( 1 ) in connection with a transaction to which section 351 (relating to transfer of property to corporation controlled by transferor) applies,
( 2 ) as paid-in surplus or as a contribution to capital, or
( 3 ) in connection with a reorganization to which part III, subchapter C, chapter 1 of the Code applies, then the basis shall be the same as it would be in the hands of the transferor, increased in the amount of gain recognized to the transferor on such transfer. (See also § 1.362-2.) See § 1.460-4(k)(3)(iv)(B)( 2 ) for rules relating to adjustments to the basis of certain contracts accounted for using a long-term contract method of accounting that are acquired in certain transfers described in section 351 and certain reorganizations described in section 368(a).
( b ) *Exceptions.* ( 1 ) In the case of a plan of reorganization adopted after October 22, 1968, section 362 does not apply if the property acquired in connection with such reorganization consists of stock or securities in a corporation a party to the reorganization, unless acquired by the exchange of stock or securities of the transferee (or of a corporation which is in control of the transferee) as the consideration in whole or in part for the transfer.
( 2 ) In the case of a plan of reorganization adopted before October 23, 1968, section 362 does not apply if the property acquired in connection with such reorganization consists of stock or securities in a corporation a party to the reorganization, unless acquired by the issuance of stock or securities of the transferee (or, in the case of transactions occurring after December 31, 1963, of a corporation which is in control of the transferee) as the consideration in whole or in part for the transfer. The term *issuance of stock or securities* includes any transfer of stock or securities, including stock or securities which were purchased or were acquired as a contribution to capital.
[T.D. 7422, 41 FR 26569, June 28, 1976, as amended by T.D. 8995, 67 FR 34605, May 15, 2002]
Editorial Note on Part 892
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 892 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 892.1710 Mammographic x-ray system. ( a ) *Identification.* A mammographic x-ray system is a device intended to be used to produce radiographs of the breast. This generic type of device may include signal analysis and display equipment, patient and equipment supports, component parts, and accessories.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>



<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>          SEP-30-1999

<CASH>                       38,641,348
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                54,612,445
<ALLOWANCES>                    122,565
<INVENTORY>                 166,346,501
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   0
<PP&E>                       53,801,396
<DEPRECIATION>               25,428,689
<TOTAL-ASSETS>              297,818,603
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              0
<BONDS>                            0
<COMMON>                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                  188,220,737
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>297,818,603
<SALES>                     277,636,204
<TOTAL-REVENUES>            277,636,204
<CGS>                       213,194,627
<TOTAL-COSTS>               213,194,627
<OTHER-EXPENSES>             11,329,723
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>              53,111,854
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          53,111,854
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                 53,111,854
<EPS-BASIC>                    128.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                    128.96



</TABLE>
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000505

15-JUL-2019

08:04 AM
EXHIBIT 4.8
                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

                       QT 5, INC. $150,000 PROMISSORY NOTE

         This Amendment No. 1 to the QT 5, INC.  $150,000  Promissory  Note (the
"Amendment"),  is entered into effective February 28, 2003, by and between QT 5,
Inc.,  a Delaware  corporation  ("QT 5") and NDMS  Investments,  L.P.,  a Nevada
limited partnership ("NDMS").

         WHEREAS,  QT 5 issued a $150,000  Promissory  Note to NDMS on September
30, 2002 in the principal amount of $150,000 (the "Note");

         WHEREAS,  the maturity date of the Note is March 1, 2002 (the "Maturity
Date") and the parties have agreed to amend the Maturity  Date to April 30, 2003
under the terms contained herein;

         NOW, THEREFORE,  for valuable consideration the sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

         1. Amendment of Due Date. Section 1.1 is hereby amended in its entirety
as follows:

                  "The  outstanding  principal shall be due and payable,  unless
                  earlier  converted by Holder,  at the earlier of (i) April 30,
                  2003 or (ii) a  financing  in which the Company  receives  net
                  proceeds  of  $1  million  (the  "Maturity  Date").   Payments
                  hereunder  shall be made by the Company to the Holder,  at the
                  address as  provided  to the Company by the Holder in writing,
                  in lawful money of the United  States of America no later than
                  1 business day  following the Maturity  date.  This Note shall
                  bear no interest."

         2. Amendment of Principal  Amount.  The principal  amount due under the
Note is hereby amended to $152,500.

         3.  Conversion  Price.  Section 2.2 shall be amended in its entirety to
read as follows:

                  "The  number  of  shares  of  Stock  to be  issued  upon  such
                  conversion shall equal the aggregate amount of principal under
                  the Note then  outstanding  divided by the  Conversion  Price,
                  which  shall  initially  be set at $1.00 per share;  provided,
                  however,  that the Conversion  Price shall be adjusted to $.10
                  if this note is not paid in full by the Maturity Date."

         All other  terms of the  Promissory  Note and other  related  documents
shall remain in full force and effect.

QT 5, INC.                                NDMS Investments, L.P.


By: /s/ TIMOTHY J. OWENS                   /s/ ROBERT W. MOORE
   ------------------------               ----------------------------
    Timothy J. Owens, CEO                  Robert W. Moore, Partner
# C_2014380EN.01001902.xml

| 27.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/19

---

Action brought on 2 September 2014 — Infusion Brands v OHMI (DUALSAW)

(Case T-647/14)

2014/C 380/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Infusion Brands, Inc. (Myer Lake Circle Clearwater, United States) (represented by: K. Piepenbrink, lawyer)

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 1 July 2014 given in Case R 397/2014-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 July 2014 given in Case R 397/2014-4;

| — | 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 figurative mark in white, black and green containing the verbal element ‘DUALSAW’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 8 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 2 0 27  561

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Partially rejected the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2014282EN.01005302.xml

| 25.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/53

---

Action brought on 2 July 2014 — Fami-Cuatro de Inversiones v Commission

(Case T-501/14)

2014/C 282/70

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Fami-Cuatro de Inversiones, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. De Juan Casadevall, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | in the alternative, if the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (STLS) is held to be unlawful State aid, order recovery only until the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the decision initiating the formal investigation, namely, 21 September 2011; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, if the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (STLS) is held to be unlawful State aid, order recovery only until the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the decision initiating the formal investigation, namely, 21 September 2011; and

Official Journal of the European Union

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-500/14 Derivados del Flúor v Commission.

Derivados del Flúor

Commission

---
39464.

#### THOBEN ELROD COMPANY v. HOLIDAY.

Russell, Judge.

1. Where the court sustains certain general and special demurrers to a petition with leave to amend, such judgment is not final, and the court after amendment shall enter a new judgment which entirely supersedes the original or interlocutory judgment. *Code Ann.*§ 81-1001. General demurrers and special demurrers' to portions of the petition materially altered by amendment must be renewed after amendment if they are still relied upon; otherwise the questions raised thereby are extinguished. *McCormick v. Johnson,*213 Ga. 544 (3) (100 SE2d 195).

2. While *Code*§ 81-105 requires that suits on account be accompanied by a bill of particulars, failure to attach a proper bill of particulars must be raised by special rather than general demurrer. *McClellan v. Rawling,*16 Ga. App. 146 (2) (84 SE 616).

3. Where a suit on open account is in the “Jack Jones” form, only slight averments are necessary to state a cause of action. *Gordy Tire Co. v. Bulman,*96 Ga. App. 739 (1) (101 SE2d 220). The petition here was in such form, the bill of particulars attached being, however, nothing more than a statement of a balance due as of a given date. It was attacked by *844proper general and special demurrers, which the trial court sustained with leave to amend. The defendant thereafter amended by attaching photostatic copies of eight invoices, each of which shows certain merchandise sold by plaintiff to defendant. All but one of the invoices identify each item by name and unit price as well as total price; the remaining invoice identifies the merchandise by model number. Each shows the quantity, amount, date order received, and date shipped. Accordingly, even as against special demurrer, the attached bill of particulars substantially complies with the requirements set out in *Kilgore v. Gulf Oil Corp.,*102 Ga. App. 619 (117 SE2d 199). The defendant, however, failed to file any objection or demurrer to the amendment or to renew his special demurrers to the petition as amended. He apparently made an oral motion to dismiss the petition in the nature of a general demurrer at the trial term, and this motion was sustained. While further information might have been called for by the plaintiff as to certain of the invoices by appropriate special demurrer, this action was not followed, and the petition as amended clearly stated a suit on account with a bill of particulars sufficiently clear to enable the defendant to know against exactly what purchases he was called upon to defend.

Decided April 12, 1962

Rehearing denied May 1, 1962.

*R. E. Fendler, de Give ■& Fendler,*for plaintiff in error.

*Marson G. Dunaway, Jr.,*contra.

The trial court erred in sustaining the motion and dismissing the petition.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 97 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 97

        To commemorate the sesquicentennial of the Oregon Trail.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                May 25 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

 Mr. Packwood (for himself and Mr. Hatfield) introduced the following 
joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
        To commemorate the sesquicentennial of the Oregon Trail.

Whereas, of all the western trails used by fur traders, gold seekers, 
        missionaries, and emigrants, the Oregon Trail was the most important to 
        the western settlement of this great Nation;
Whereas, in the year 1843, the first major wave of humanity left Independence, 
        Missouri and travelled 2,170 miles in covered wagons across sagebrush, 
        plains, mountains, and rivers to the Willamette Valley in Oregon 
        Territory;
Whereas over 400,000 men, women, and children risked their lives in this 
        greatest migration in American history;
Whereas this Nation was expanded from ocean to ocean, as settlement of the Old 
        Oregon Territory forced Great Britain to relinquish this land to the 
        United States;
Whereas the pioneering spirit of the Oregon Trail emigrants embodies the spirit 
        of the American people;
Whereas Americans have an ever-increasing desire to understand our national 
        heritage;
Whereas, in 1978, Congress enacted the National Trails System Act, designating 
        the Oregon Trail as a national historic trail, in recognition of the 
        vital role it played in our Nation's history; and
Whereas, in 1993, the American people will seek to rekindle the pioneering 
        spirit of the ``Great Migration'' and an official Oregon Trail 
        sesquicentennial wagon train will journey across the Nation, arriving in 
        Oregon City, Oregon on September 4, 1993: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That September 4, 1993, is 
hereby designated as ``National Oregon Trail Day''. The President is 
authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the 
people of the United States to observe this day with the appropriate 
ceremonies and activities.

                                 <all>
```
# C_2014253EN.01003101.xml

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/31

---

Action brought on 14 April 2014 — Chemo Ibérica v OHIM — Novartis (EXELTIS)

(Case T-253/14)

2014/C 253/45

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Chemo Ibérica, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M.I. Escudero Pérez, 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: Novartis AG (Basel, 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 Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2014 in Case R 1022/2013-4, and accordingly order that figurative Community trade mark No 1 0 2 49  035‘EXELTIS’ should be granted in relation to Class 5 of the International Classification; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2014 in Case R 1022/2013-4, and accordingly order that figurative Community trade mark No 1 0 2 49  035‘EXELTIS’ should be granted in relation to Class 5 of the International Classification;

| — | order the defendant and/or the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and/or the other party to the proceedings 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: Chemo Ibérica, SA

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘EXELTIS’ for goods in Class 5 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 2 49  035

Community trade mark concerned:

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

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘EXELON’ for goods in Class 5

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Application rejected

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

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

Pleas in law:

---
Exhibit
10.23


February 7, 2003


 


Board of Directors

Riverwood Holding, Inc.

3350 Riverwood Parkway

Suite 1400

Atlanta, Georgia 30339


 


Dear Directors:


 


We are providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your
Form 10-K filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.


 


We have audited the consolidated financial statements included in the
Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002
and issued our report thereon dated February 7, 2003.  Note 5 to the financial statements describes a change in
accounting principle from the last-in, first-out method to the first-in,
first-out for determining the cost of inventories.  It should be understood that the preferability of one acceptable
method of accounting over another for accounting for inventory has not been
addressed in any authoritative accounting literature, and in expressing our
concurrence below we have relied on management’s determination that this change
in accounting principle is preferable. 
Based on our reading of management’s stated reasons and justification
for this change in accounting principle in the Form 10-K, and our discussions
with management as to their judgment about the relevant business planning
factors relating to the change, we concur with management that such change
represents, in the Company’s circumstances, the adoption of a preferable
accounting principle in conformity with Accounting Principles Board Opinion
No. 20.


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


 


PricewaterhouseCoopers
#### § 1.1081-10 Nonapplication of other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

The effect of section 1081(g) is that an exchange, sale, or distribution which is within section 1081 shall, with respect to the nonrecognition of gain or loss and the determination of basis, be governed only by the provisions of part VI (section 1081 and following), subchapter O, chapter 1 of the Code, the purpose being to prevent overlapping of those provisions and other provisions of subtitle A of the Code. In other words, if by virtue of section 1081 any portion of a person's gain or loss on any particular exchange, sale, or distribution is not to be recognized, then the gain or loss of such person shall be nonrecognized only to the extent provided in section 1081, regardless of what the result might have been if part VI (section 1081 and following), subchapter O, chapter 1 of the Code, had not been enacted; and similarly, the basis in the hands of such person of the property received by him in such transaction shall be the basis provided by section 1082, regardless of what the basis of such property might have been under section 1011 if such part VI had not been enacted. On the other hand, if section 1081 does not provide for the nonrecognition of any portion of a person's gain or loss (whether or not such person is another party to the same transaction referred to above), then the gain or loss of such person shall be recognized or nonrecognized to the extent provided for by other provisions of subtitle A of the Code as if such part VI had not been enacted; and similarly, the basis in his hands of the property received by him in such transaction shall be the basis provided by other provisions of subtitle A of the Code as if such part VI had not been enacted.