alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020423EN.01003701.xml

| 7.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — Eugène Perma France v EUIPO — SPI Investments Group (NATURANOVE)

(Case T-602/19) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark NATURANOVE - Earlier EU word mark NATURALIUM - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 423/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eugène Perma France (Saint-Denis, France) (represented by S. Havard Duclos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: SPI Investments Group, SL (Sant Just Desvern, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2019 (Case R 2161/2018-4), concerning opposition proceedings between SPI Investments Group and Eugène Perma France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 July 2019 (Case R 2161/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between SPI Investments Group, SL and Eugène Perma France; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 July 2019 (Case R 2161/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between SPI Investments Group, SL and Eugène Perma France;

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including the costs necessarily incurred for the purposes of the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including the costs necessarily incurred for the purposes of the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.

---
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:AD-related information:
1) Disposition of Comments (no comments)
2) Signed Final Rule Grid
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Series Id:

Series title:

Labor force status:

Type of data:

Age:

Years:

Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Annual

2011 76017

Civilian noninstitutional population

Number in thousands

55 years and over

2011 to 2011

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Original Data Value

LNU00024230Q

Not Seasonally Adjusted

(Unadj) Population Level - 55 yrs. & over

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 16, 2011 (02:09:38 PM)
# C_2021337EN.01000101.xml

| 23.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

20 August 2021

(2021/C 337/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1671 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 127,97 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4368 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85750 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,3263 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0711 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 149,40 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,6000 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,559 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 350,92 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5895 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9344 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 9,9571 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6373 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5069 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,0924 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7108 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5907 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 380,66 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,8750 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,5854 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4990 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 887,06 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9456 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,765 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 86,9259 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,946 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,3622 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,6848 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 86,8025 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1671

JPY

Japanese yen

127,97

DKK

Danish krone

7,4368

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85750

SEK

Swedish krona

10,3263

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0711

ISK

Iceland króna

149,40

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,6000

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,559

HUF

Hungarian forint

350,92

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5895

RON

Romanian leu

4,9344

TRY

Turkish lira

9,9571

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6373

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5069

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,0924

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7108

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5907

KRW

South Korean won

1 380,66

ZAR

South African rand

17,8750

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,5854

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4990

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 887,06

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9456

PHP

Philippine peso

58,765

RUB

Russian rouble

86,9259

THB

Thai baht

38,946

BRL

Brazilian real

6,3622

MXN

Mexican peso

23,6848

INR

Indian rupee

86,8025

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 249 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  Union Calendar No. 58
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 249

                          [Report No. 110-93]

To restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild 
                    free-roaming horses and burros.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 2007

  Mr. Rahall (for himself and Mr. Whitfield) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

                             April 17, 2007

   Additional sponsors: Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr. Tierney, Mr. 
  Delahunt, Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. 
LoBiondo, Mr. Platts, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Wu, Mr. 
   George Miller of California, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Abercrombie, and Mr. 
                     Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

                             April 17, 2007

   Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
                    Union, and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild 
                    free-roaming horses and burros.

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

SECTION 1. SALE OF WILD FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND BURROS.

    (a) In General.--Section 3(d)(5) of Public Law 92-195 (16 U.S.C. 
1333(d)(5)) is amended--
            (1) by striking the period and inserting the following: 
        ``Provided, That no wild free-roaming horse or burro or its 
        remains may be sold or transferred for consideration for 
        processing into commercial products.''; and
            (2) by striking subsection (e).
    (b) Criminal Provisions.--Section (8)(a)(4) of Public Law 92-195 
(16 U.S.C. 1338(a)(4)) is amended by striking ``except as provided in 
section 3(e),''.
                                                  Union Calendar No. 58

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 249

                          [Report No. 110-93]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild 
                    free-roaming horses and burros.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 17, 2007

   Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
                    Union, and ordered to be printed
```
# Official Journal L 201/30 J

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 201 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5830 July 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 201

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5830 July 2015

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1225 of 19 December 2012 regarding injections of capital by SEA SpA into SEA Handling SpA (Case SA.21420 (C 14/10) (ex NN 25/10) (ex CP 175/06)) (notified under document C(2012) 9448) (Only the Italian text is authentic) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| | * | Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1226 of 23 July 2014 on State aid SA.33963 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of Angoulême Chamber of Commerce and Industry, SNC-Lavalin, Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services (notified under document C(2014) 5080) (Only the French text is authentic) (
  1
  ) | 48 |
| | * | Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1227 of 23 July 2014 on State aid SA.22614 (C 53/07) implemented by France in favour of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Pau-Béarn, Ryanair, Airport Marketing Services and Transavia (notified under document C(2014) 5085) (Only the French text is authentic) (
  1
  ) | 109 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1225 of 19 December 2012 regarding injections of capital by SEA SpA into SEA Handling SpA (Case SA.21420 (C 14/10) (ex NN 25/10) (ex CP 175/06)) (notified under document C(2012) 9448) (Only the Italian text is authentic) (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2012) 9448)

1

1

*

Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1226 of 23 July 2014 on State aid SA.33963 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of Angoulême Chamber of Commerce and Industry, SNC-Lavalin, Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services (notified under document C(2014) 5080) (Only the French text is authentic) (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2014) 5080)

1

48

*

Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1227 of 23 July 2014 on State aid SA.22614 (C 53/07) implemented by France in favour of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Pau-Béarn, Ryanair, Airport Marketing Services and Transavia (notified under document C(2014) 5085) (Only the French text is authentic) (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2014) 5085)

1

109

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

FY 2015 Performance Based Restricted Stock Plan 

Value of Restricted Stock 
  

 
  

													
	 Name
	  	Threshold	 	  	Target	 	  	Maximum	 
	 John Boucher
	  	$	420,000	  	  	$	600,000	  	  	$	1,200.000	  
	 Joseph Sherk
	  	$	28,000	  	  	$	40,000	  	  	$	80,000	  
	 Alan Cormier
	  	$	56,000	  	  	$	80,000	  	  	$	160,000	  

 Adjusted EBITDA is expressed prior to payouts under the FY2015 Incentive Compensation Plan, and consistent with
the definition reviewed with and approved by the Committee. 
 Restricted stock may be awarded in accordance with the table above if the
Corporation achieves the fiscal year 2015 Adjusted EBITDA Gate level and achieves at least the Threshold level of ROIC and/or Book & Bill. PBRS value at Threshold, Target and Maximum is a weighted combination of 70% ROIC and 30% Book and
Bill. 
 Number of shares of restricted stock which may be issued will be determined and issued on or about the third business day following
the day the Corporation publicly releases its financial results for the fiscal year ending July 31, 2015 (the “Share Valuation Date by applying the following formula: 

= a/b 
 Where “a” is the
Value of Restricted Stock set forth above; and “b” is the Closing Price of Common Stock on Share Valuation Date. For example, if closing price of the common stock on the Share Valuation Date is $3.00, then John J. Boucher would receive at
Target performance, 200,000 shares of restricted stock.
#### Morris Meyer, Respondent, *v.*William J. Riordan, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Uriah W. Tompkins, for appellant.

Manheim & Manheim, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

If the appellant was dissatisfied with the statement made by the trial justice to the jury, he should have requested him to charge that there was no evidence *pro*or *con*upon the fact concerning which the jury wished to be instructed. Appellant’s mere exception to the instruction given, we think, was not sufficient. 32 N. Y. St. Repr. 612; 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 139.

Judgment is. affirmed, with costs. '

Present: Fitzsimohs, Oh. J., Cqelae and O’Dwyer, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q REPORT OF CHINA RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, INC. FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED
MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     RENMINBI YUAN
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1999      
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1999   
<PERIOD-END>                                     MAR-31-1999   
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                         8.28   
<CASH>                                                89,532   
<SECURITIES>                                               0   
<RECEIVABLES>                                          5,757   
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0   
<INVENTORY>                                           13,069   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     257,620   
<PP&E>                                                12,277   
<DEPRECIATION>                                         5,991   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       384,194   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 94,361   
<BONDS>                                                    0   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0   
<PREFERRED>                                               27   
<COMMON>                                                  49   
<OTHER-SE>                                           183,019   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         384,194   
<SALES>                                               21,355   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      21,538   
<CGS>                                                 21,140   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         27,094   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (5,556)   
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0   
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (5,556)   
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0   
<CHANGES>                                                  0   
<NET-INCOME>                                         (4,349)   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (0.73)   
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.73)   
                                                               

</TABLE>
ERROR — COURTS.

[Defiance Circuit Court,

January Term, 1891.]

Seney, Beer and, Moore, JJ.

#### †O. E. ATWOOD ET AL. v. RODNEY M. WHIPPLE.

Review oe Order Made at Chambers.

The circuit court has no jurisdiction to review an order of the common pleas court made at chambers.

Henry Newbegin, for plaintiffs in error,

in support of the jurisdiction of the court, cited: Burke v. Railway, 45 O. S., 631; sec. 6707 Rev. Stat.; Young v. Gerdes, *42*O. S., 102; Seville v. Wagner, 46 O. S., 52; C., S. & C. R. R. Co. v. Sloan, 31 O. S., 1.

Hill & Hubbard, for defendants in error.

†

This case was affirmed by the supreme court; see opinion 48 O. S. 308.

Per Curiam :

The case of Atwood and others against Rodney M. Whipple is submitted to the court on a demurrer to the petition in error.

The Backus Steam Heater Co. filed its petition in the court of common pleas, praying, among other things for an injunction. Afterwards Rodney M. Whipple, made a party to the action, filed his cross-petition, and upon his cross-petition the court of common pleas allowed a temporay injunction. Two'of the defendants moved the court to dissolve the temporary injunction; that motion was heard at chambers, and upon the hearing, the motion was overruled. To the order of the court overruling that motion, the parties making the motion, and another, filed their petition in error in this court to reverse the order of the judge of the court of common pleas refusing to dissolve the injunction. The defendant in error, Whipple, demurs to the petition on the ground that there is a misjoinder of parties, and it is a question under the code of civil procedure whether such' a pleading is allowed as a demurrer to a petition in error.

We do not find it necessary to determine whether under any circumstances the court will hear a demurrer to a petition in error. ■ Vh think the case can be and must be disposed of upon other grounds.

Section 6707 defines a final order.

Section 6708 defines the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas in error, and provides that:

> *“A*judgment rendered or final order made by a probate court, justice of the peace, or any other tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions inferior to the court of common pleas, may be reversed, vacated or modified by the court of common pleas.”

Section 6709, defining the jurisdiction of the circuit court on error, provides that:

> *“A*judgment rendered, or final order made by the common pleas court, may be reversed, vacated or modified by the circuit court for error appearing on the record.”

The order complained of is not an order made by the court of common pleas, but by the judge at chambers, and this court has no jurisdiction to review such an order made at chambers.

The petition in error will be dismissed therefore, for want of jurisdiction of this court to hear it.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2711 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain computer-assisted 

remote hunting, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2007 

Mr. SHERMAN (for himself, Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. PETERSON of 

Minnesota, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. 

COHEN, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. KIRK, Mr. 

LANGEVIN, Mr. MILLER of North Carolina, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Ms. LINDA T. 

SA ́NCHEZ of California, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, 

and Mr. BERMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain 

computer-assisted remote hunting, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Computer-Assisted Re5 mote Hunting Act’’. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HR 2711 IH

1 SEC. 2. COMPUTER-ASSISTED REMOTE HUNTING FACILI2 TIES. 

3 (a) OFFENSE.—Chapter 3 of title 18, United States 

4 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘§ 49. Computer-assisted remote hunting 

6 ‘‘(a) PROHIBITION.—Whoever, using any instrumen7 tality of interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly makes 

8 available a computer-assisted remote hunt shall be fined 

9 under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or 

10 both. 

11 ‘‘(b) EXCEPTION.—Providing an instrumentality of 

12 commerce, such as equipment or access to the Internet, 

13 is not a violation of this section unless the provider intends 

14 the use of the equipment or access for a computer-assisted 

15 remote hunt. 

16 ‘‘(c) CONSTRUCTION WITH OTHER LAW.—Nothing 

17 in this section limits the power of State and local authori18 ties to enact laws or regulations concerning computer-as19 sisted remote hunting facilities. 

20 ‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

21 ‘‘(1) the term ‘computer-assisted remote hunt’ 

22 means any use of a computer or any other device, 

23 equipment, or software, to allow a person remotely 

24 to control the aiming and discharge of a weapon so 

25 as to kill or injure an animal while not in the phys26 ical presence of the targeted animal; and 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•HR 2711 IH

1 ‘‘(2) the term ‘instrumentality of interstate 

2 commerce’ means any written, wire, radio, television, 

3 or other form of communication in, or using a facil4 ity of, interstate commerce.’’. 

5 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

6 at the beginning of chapter 3 of title 18, United States 

7 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 

8 item: 

‘‘49. Computer-assisted remote hunting.’’. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS