alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012065EN.01000701.xml

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/7

---

Appeal brought on 20 December 2011 by Seven for all mankind LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2011 in Case T-176/10: Seven SpA v Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-655/11 P)

2012/C 65/14

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Seven for all mankind LLC (represented by: A. Gautier-Sauvagnac, avocat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 October 2011, notified on October 7, 2011 (Case T-176/10), |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 October 2011, notified on October 7, 2011 (Case T-176/10),

| — | Confirm the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of January 28, 2010, notified on February 15, 2010 (Case R 1514/2008-2), |
| --- | --- |

—

Confirm the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of January 28, 2010, notified on February 15, 2010 (Case R 1514/2008-2),

| — | Order Seven SpA to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs of Seven For All Mankind, in the present proceedings and in the proceedings before the OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Seven SpA to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs of Seven For All Mankind, in the present proceedings and in the proceedings before the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

| — | Firstly, the General Court committed a breach of procedure affecting the interests of the Appellant when assessing the distinctive character of the word SEVEN |
| --- | --- |

—

Firstly, the General Court committed a breach of procedure affecting the interests of the Appellant when assessing the distinctive character of the word SEVEN

| — | Secondly, the General Court did not fulfil the requirements of settled case-law in assessing the notion of similarity between the trademarks referred to in Article 8(1)(b) of CTMR and did not take into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case. |
| --- | --- |

—

Secondly, the General Court did not fulfil the requirements of settled case-law in assessing the notion of similarity between the trademarks referred to in Article 8(1)(b) of CTMR and did not take into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case.

---
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1820 

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

2777 Logan Avenue in San Diego, California, as the ‘‘Cesar E. Chavez 

Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 31, 2009 

Mrs. DAVIS of California (for herself, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. FILNER, Mr. COSTA, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Ms. WOOLSEY, Ms. 

MATSUI, Mr. BECERRA, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. BACA, Mr. MCNERNEY, 

Mr. HONDA, and Mr. STARK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2777 Logan Avenue in San Diego, California, as the ‘‘Cesar E. Chavez Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CESAR E. CHAVEZ POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) REDESIGNATION.—The facility of the United 

5 States Postal Service located at 2777 Logan Avenue in 

6 San Diego, California, and known as the Southeastern 

7 Post Office, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Cesar 

8 E. Chavez Post Office’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1820 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Cesar E. Chavez Post 

5 Office’’. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
#### § 174.360 Calculations.

Each ship to which this subpart applies must comply with the minimum standard of subdivision and damage stability applicable to that ship under IMO Res. MSC.216(82), (incorporated by reference, see § 174.007). Compliance with the applicable requirements must be demonstrated by calculations and reflected in information on loading restrictions, such as a maximum height of the center of gravity (KG) or minimum metacentric height (GM) curve, that is part of the stability information required by § 170.110 of this chapter.

[USCG-2007-0030, 75 FR 78086, Dec. 14, 2010]
EX-4.1





 Exhibit 4.1 

[FACE OF CERTIFICATE] 
 PI 

PRECIGEN, INC. 
 SHARES 

COMMON STOCK 
 SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS 

CUSIP 74017N 10 5 
 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
VIRGINIA 
 THIS CERTIFIES THAT: 
 is the owner of 

FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK, NO PAR VALUE, OF 

Precigen, Inc. 
 transferable on the books of the Corporation in
person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of the certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar. 

WITNESS the facsimile signatures of the Corporation’s duly authorized officers. 

Dated: 
 [SIGNATURE] 

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
 [SIGNATURE] 

SECRETARY 
 COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: 

AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY, LLC 
 (Brooklyn,
NY) 

BY:                          
                          TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR 

AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 
 [REVERSE OF CERTIFICATE] 

The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full
according to applicable laws or regulations: 
 TEN COM – as tenants in common 

TEN ENT – as tenants by the entireties 












 JT TEN – as joint tenants with right 

of survivorship and not as 
 tenants in common 

UNIF GIFT MIN ACT –__________________ Custodian__________________ 

    (Cust)
                                         (Minor)

 under Uniform Gifts to Minors 

Act____________________________________ 

(State) 
 Additional
abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 
 For value received, __________________ hereby sell, assign and transfer unto 

PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER 
 IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF
ASSIGNEE 
  
 



 
  
  

PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE 
  

 
  

 
  

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ Shares of the common stock represented by the within
Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint __________________________________________________________________________________ Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of
substitution in the premises 
 Dated __________________________ 

NOTICE: 
 THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH
THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER. 
 SIGNATURE(S)
GUARANTEED: 
 THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT
UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 17Ad-15
# C_2012250EN.01001401.xml

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — Clorox v OHIM — Industrias Alen (CLORALEX)

(Case T-135/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CLORALEX - Earlier national word marks CLOROX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 250/25

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Clorox Company (Oakland, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and A. Chaudri, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Industrias Alen SA de CV (Nuevo León, Mexico) (represented by: J. Astiz Suárez, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2010 (Case R 521/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between The Clorox Company and Industrias Alen SA de CV.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 December 2010 (Case R 521/2009-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 December 2010 (Case R 521/2009-4);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by The Clorox Company; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by The Clorox Company;

| 3. | Orders Industrias Alen SA de CV to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Industrias Alen SA de CV to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.

1

---
EXHIBIT 21.1
  Subsidiary
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationJDA Software Group, Inc.
    
    DelawareJDA Software, Inc.
    
    ArizonaJDA Worldwide, Inc.
    
    ArizonaJDA Software Services, Inc.
    
    DelawareManugistics Group, Inc.
    
    DelawareManugistics, Inc.
    
    DelawareManugistics Holdings Delaware, Inc.
    
    DelawareManugistics Holdings Delaware II, Inc.
    
    DelawareManugistics Services, Inc.
    
    DelawareManugistics California, Inc.
    
    Californiai2 Technologies, Inc.
    
    Delawarei2 Technologies International Services, Inc.
    
    DelawareAspect Development International, Inc.
    
    DelawareFreightMatrix.com, Inc.
    
    Delawareec-Content, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaRightworks Corporation
    
    CaliforniaJDA Technologies US, Inc.
    
    NevadaJDA Software Australia Pty Ltd
    
    AustraliaManugistics Australia PTY Limited
    
    Australiai2 Technologies Pty Ltd.
    
    Australiai2 Technologies N.V.
    
    BelgiumManugistics Benelux
    
    BelgiumJDA Solutions DO Brasil Ltda
    
    BrazilJDA Software Canada Ltd.
    
    Canadai2 Technologies (Canada) Co.
    
    CanadaBeijing i2 Technologies Company Ltd.
    
    ChinaJDA Chile S.A.
    
    ChileJDA International Limited
    
    England & Walesi2 Technologies Finland Oy Ltd.
    
    FinlandJDA Software France S.A.
    
    Francei2 Technologies SARL
    
    FranceManugistics Deutschland GmbH
    
    GermanyAspect Development Germany GmbH
    
    Germanyi2 Technologies, GmbH
    
    GermanyJDA Software Hong Kong Limited
    
    Hong KongJDA Hong Kong Limited
    
    Hong KongJDA Software India Private Limited
    
    Indiai2 Technologies India Private Limited
    
    IndiaJDA Software Italy S.r.L.
    
    ItalyJDA Software Japan Co. Ltd.
    
    Japani2 Technologies Japan, Inc.
    
    Japani2 Technologies Korea, Ltd.
    
    KoreaJDA Software Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.
    
    MalaysiaManu Solutions Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.
    
    Malaysiai2 Technologies (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
    
    MalaysiaJDA Software de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
    
    MexicoJDA Servicios Profesionales, S.A. de C.V.
    
    Mexico




---



##### 



Subsidiary
    
    Jurisdiction of Incorporationi2 de Mexico S. de R.L.C.V
    
    MexicoJDA Software Benelux B.V.
    
    NetherlandsJDA Netherlands C.V.
    
    NetherlandsStanley International Holding C.V.
    
    Netherlandsi2 Technologies (Netherlands) B.V.
    
    NetherlandsJDA Software Norway AS
    
    NorwayJDA Software Shanghai Co. Ltd.
    
    ShanghaiJDA Asia Pte. Ltd.
    
    SingaporeJDA Software Asia Pte. Ltd.
    
    Singaporei2 Technologies PTE Ltd.
    
    SingaporeJDA Software South Africa (Proprietary) Limited
    
    South AfricaScheduling Technology Group SouthAfrica (PTY) Limited
    
    South AfricaMStar SA (Pty) Ltd.
    
    South AfricaJDA Incorporated Software Solutions, S.A.
    
    Spaini2 Technologies SL
    
    SpainJDA Software Nordic AB
    
    Swedeni2 Technologies Taiwan, Inc.
    
    Taiwani2 Technologies Limited
    
    United Kingdom
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Gensym Corporation. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Lowell B. Hawkinson, Chairman of the Board of
Directors, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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: March 30, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ Lowell B. HawkinsonLowell B. Hawkinson Chairman of the Board of Directors, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, William Slater, Chief Financial Officer of SabaSoftware, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certify, as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge: 

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended August 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(2) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. 

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

Date: October 7, 2009
1 

### Sutton, Tia

From: Sutton, Tia Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 6:01 PM To: 'Whiteman, Chad' Cc: Hengst, Benjamin; Owens, Nicole Subject: Aircraft GHG to OMB 6-9-15_clean.docx Attachments: Aircraft GHG to OMB 6-9-15_clean.docx



### Hi Chad, Clean version of the Aircraft package is attached.

Thanks, Tia
EXHIBIT  99.1

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

     In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report of GreenSmart Corporation (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the "Report"), I,
Lawrence  Hon,  Chief  Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted pursuant to ss. 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;  and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and  result of operations of the
Company.



/s/  Lawrence Hon

-----------------------------
Lawrence Hon
Chief Executive Officer
July 31, 2003


                                       23
EXHIBIT 32.1

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



The undersigned  hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive  Officer of
Belcrest Capital Fund LLC (the "Fund"), that:

(a)  the  Quarterly  Report  of the  Fund on Form  10-Q  for the  quarter  ended
     September 30, 2003 (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements of
     Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(b)  the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund
     for such period.


Date:  November 10, 2003



                                   /s/ Thomas E. Faust Jr.
                                   -----------------------
                                   Thomas E. Faust Jr.
                                   Chief Executive Officer
#### J. S. Minor v. J. B. Gordon. J. S. Minor v. Mose Minor. J. S. Minor v. Reynolds.

(Decided March 11, 1919.)

Appeals from Jefferson Circuit Court (Common Pleas Branch, First Division).

Appeal and Error — Failure to File Brief — Effect.—In the absence of a brief from the appellant specifying the errors for which *590a reversal is asked, tke Court of Appeals will assume that no errors were committed by the trial court, or that they have been waived; and, consequently, that the judgment appealed from correctly determined the rights of the parties.

CLEM W. HUGGINS for appellant.

JOS. S. LAWTON and W. S. CRAWFORD for appellees.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Settle

Affirming.

This is the second appeal of the first above styled case,- and the second motion for an appeal in the second and third cases. The cases have been twice tried together in the court below. On the first of these trials the appellees each recovered a judgment against the appellant; that in favor of- J. B. Gordon being for $500.00; that in favor of Mose Minor for $400.00, and that in favor- of Ottie Reynolds for $200.00.

Pn the first appeal of the three cases, the first prosecuted as a matter of right because the amount in controversy was $500.00 and the others granted by this court because the amount in controversy in -each was as much as $200.00, and less than $500.00. All the judgments were reversed because of error in the trial court’s instructions to the jury and the several causes remanded to that court for another trial consistent with the opinion. (See opinion in Minor v. Gordon, etc., 170 Ky. 609; and response to petition for rehearing, 171 Ky. 790.) The return of the cases to the circuit court was followed by the second trial, in which each of the appellees recovered of J. S. Minor a judgment for the same amount recovered on the first trial. The latter was refused a new trial and has again appealed, the appeal from the judgment in favor of J. B. Gordon for $500.00 being taken as a matter of right and those from the judgment in favor of Mose Minor for $400.00, and Ottie Reynolds for $200.00, applied for by motions entered in this court.

We have not been favored with a brief by the appellant or appellees, and in the absence of a brief from the appellant specifying the errors for which a reversal is asked, we will assume that no errors exist, or that they have been waived and, consequently, that the judgment appealed from correctly determined the rights of the parties. Commonwealth v. Lexington & Eastern Ry. Co., 167 Ky. 442; Continental Ins. Co. v. Ramsey, 160 Ky. 158; Crawford v. Wiedeman, 158 Ky. 333;; Brown v. Daniels, 154 Ky. 267.

*591For the reasons indicated the judgment in the appeal of J. S. Minor v. J. B. Gordon is affirmed. The motions for an appeal in the cases of J. S. Minor v. Mose Minor and J. S. Minor v. Ottie Reynolds are overruled, the appeals refused, and the judgment in each of these cases' affirmed.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure, Judicial Conference of the United States. 

# ACTION:

Notice of open meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure will hold a two day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation. 

# DATES:

April 19-20, 2007. 

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Brooklyn Law School, 250 Joralemon Street, 11th Floor, Brooklyn, NY. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820. 

Dated: February 27, 2007. 

John K. Rabiej, 

Chief, Rules Committee Support Office. 

[FR Doc. 07-1044 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
#### § 168.15-1 Intent.

The accommodations provided for members of the crew, passengers, cadets, students, instructors or any other persons at any time quartered on board a vessel to which this part applies must be securely constructed, properly lighted, heated, drained, ventilated, equipped, located, arranged and insulated from undue noise, heat and odors.