alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016048EN.01003001.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v Commission

(Case T-28/11) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (Amstelveen, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Smeets, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Noë, N. von Lingen and C. Giolito, and subsequently by S. Noë, C. Giolito and A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

In
connection with the Annual Report of Ticketmaster Entertainment LLC (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Rapino, President and Chief Executive Officer of Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Date:

February 25, 2010By:

/s/ MICHAEL RAPINO Michael Rapino
President and Chief Executive Officer
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.*


*Mr. Rapino,
as Chief Executive Officer of the Company's parent, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. performs the function of Chief Executive Officer
of the Company.


---
Exhibit 32.1


     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------


In  connection  with the filing of the Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB/A  for the
fiscal year ended  December 31, 2003 (the  "Report") by SmartServ  Online,  Inc.
("Registrant"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:


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

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




                                        /s/  Robert M. Pons
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                             Robert M. Pons
                                             Chief Executive Officer
                                             Dated: May 12, 2004



                                        /s/  Len von Vital
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                             Len von Vital
                                             Chief Financial Officer
                                             Dated: May 12, 2004



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to SmartServ  Online,  Inc.  and will be retained by SmartServ  Online,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
request.
|EXHIBIT 32.1
|------------



|CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF 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 based on his knowledge:

|(a) | the Quarterly Report of the Fund on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (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 9, 2005
|----------------------



| | /s/ Thomas E. Faust Jr.Thomas E. Faust Jr.Chief Executive Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

---
#### § 176.502 Certificate of Inspection: Conditions of validity.

To maintain a valid Certificate of Inspection, you must complete your annual inspection within the periods specified in § 176.500(b)(1) and your Certificate of Inspection must be endorsed.

[USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6508, Feb. 9, 2000]
# C_2016048EN.01002901.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Air Canada v Commission

(Case T-9/11) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Air Canada (Quebec, Canada) (represented by: S. Kim, H. Bignall, J. Pheasant and T. Capel, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Noë and N. von Lingen, subsequently by J. Bourke and S. Noë, and lastly by A. Dawes and H. Leupold, acting as Agents, and by G. Peretz, Barrister)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Air Canada; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Air Canada;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Air Canada. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Air Canada.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

1

---
# C_2013359EN.01000702.xml

| 7.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/7

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2013 — Biotronik SE v OHIM — Cardios Sistemas (CARDIO MANAGER)

(Case T-416/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CARDIO MANAGER - Earlier national word mark CardioMessenger - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 359/11

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Biotronik SE & Co. KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Reich, S. Pietzcker and R. Jacobs, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Cardios Sistemas Comercial e Industrial Ltda (Sao Paulo, Brazil)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2011 (Case R 1156/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Biotronik SE & Co. KG and Cardios Sistemas Comercial e Industrial Ltda.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Biotronik SE & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Biotronik SE & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.

1

---
#### § 167.05-35 Public nautical school.

The term *public nautical school* means any school or branch thereof operated by any State or political subdivision thereof or a school operated by the United States Maritime Administration that offers instruction for the primary purpose of training for service in the merchant marine.

[CGD 84-069, 61 FR 25311, May 20, 1996]
# C_2011298EN.01001102.xml

| 8.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 18 July 2011 — Caves Krier Frères S.àr.l v Directeur de l’Administration de l’emploi

(Case C-379/11)

2011/C 298/22

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caves Krier Frères S.àr.l

Applicant:

Defendant: Directeur de l’Administration de l’emploi

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is the first subparagraph of Article L.541-1 of the Luxembourg Labour Code compatible with Union law, and more particularly Articles 21 and 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in so far as it reserves the right to reimbursement of part employer part employee social security contributions upon the hiring of unemployed persons aged over 45 years, be they indemnified or not, to private sector employers on condition that the unemployed persons be registered as work seekers with a placement office of the Luxembourg employment administration for at least one month, while employers who hire unemployed persons registered as work seekers with corresponding foreign bodies do not benefit from that measure?

---
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.038-2 Type. ( a ) Portable magazine chests shall be of a type suitable for stowage of pyrotechnic distress signals, rockets, or powder for line-throwing guns, and shall be of a size not less than 6 nor more than 40 cubic feet capacity. Alternate types of construction to that specified below will be given special consideration.
( b ) [Reserved]
§ 169.229 Drydock examination, internal structural examination, and underwater survey intervals. ( a ) Except as provided for in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section, each vessel must undergo drydock and internal structural examinations as follows: ( 1 ) If your vessel operates in saltwater, it must undergo two drydock examinations and two internal structural examinations within any 5-year period unless it has been approved to undergo an underwater survey (UWILD) under § 169.230 of this part. No more than 3 years may elapse between any two examinations.
( 2 ) If your vessel operated in fresh water at least 50 percent of the time since your last drydocking, it must undergo a dry dock and internal structural examination at intervals not to exceed 5 years unless it has been approved to undergo an underwater survey (UWILD) under § 169.230 of this part.
( b ) Vessels with wooden hulls must undergo two drydock and two internal structural examinations within any five year period regardless of the type of water in which they operate. No more than three years may elapse between any two examinations.
( c ) If, during an internal structural examination damage or deterioration to the hull plating or structural members is discovered, the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, may require the vessel to be drydocked or otherwise taken out of service to further assess the extent of the damage and to effect permanent repairs.
( d ) Each vessel which has not met with the applicable examination schedules in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section because it is on a voyage, must undergo the required examinations upon completion of the voyage.
( e ) The Commandant (CG-CVC) may authorize extensions to the examination intervals specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
[CGD 84-024, 52 FR 39656, Oct. 23, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 32232, Aug. 24, 1988; CGD 95-072, 60 FR 50468, Sept. 29, 1995; CGD 96-041, 61 FR 50734, Sept. 27, 1996; USCG-2000-6858, 67 FR 21083, Apr. 29, 2002; USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49239, Sept. 25, 2009; USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59788, Oct. 1, 2012]
BILLING CODE: 6715-01-M 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY: FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

DATE & TIME: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2017 AT 10:00 A.M. 

PLACE: 999 E STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. (NINTH FLOOR)

STATUS: THIS MEETING WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT – 82 FR 9381

CHANGE IN THE MEETING: The February 9, 2017 meeting was cancelled. 

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer

Telephone: (202) 694-1220

Signed: _____________________________________

Dayna C. Brown

Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission

Submitted: February 8, 2017
#### DICK HOFSTEDE ET AL. v. CARMELO DiSTEFANO.

Decided May 4, 1929.

Before Gummejje, Chief Justice, and Justice Parker.

For the rule, *Mark*Townsend, *Jr.*

Contra, *Robert H. Doherty.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff, Dick Hofstedé, a boy twenty years old, while riding a bicycle in a northerly direction on the Hudson County Boulevard,-was run into by the automobile of the defendant, which was traveling in the opposite direction. The present suit is based upon the boy’s claim that the collision resulted solely by reason of the carelessness of the driver of the defendant’s car. His mother, who is a widow, also claims to be entitled to compensation for medical expenses incurred by her in the treatment of her son, and for the loss of his wages resulting from the accident. The trial resulted in an award to the boy of $2,200 and to the mother of $800.

The first contention .on the part of the defendant is that the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, both upon the question of his negligence and also on the question of the contributory negligence of the boy. Our examination of the proofs satisfies us that this contention is without merit. If the testimony submitted by the plaintiffs is accepted as true, it is clear that the defendant alone was responsible for the accident, and it was for the jury to say, *451after having seen and heard the witnesses produced by the plaintiffs, and also those called on behalf of the defendant, whether the testimony of the witnesses on the one side or the other should be accepted as true. They believed the witnesses called by the plaintiffs, and in our opinion were entirely justified in doing so.

The only other ground for making the rule absolute is that the trial court erroneously overruled the motion of the defendant to strike out a part of the testimony of one Dr. Helfond relating to the loss of the function of the boy’s arm; the ground of the motion being that the doctor’s opinion was based upon subjective symptoms elicited by him at an examination made of the boy’s condition merely for the purpose of testifying at the trial. In passing upon this ground for making the rule absolute it may be conceded that the testimony was objectionable. It appears, however, that this testimony was given during the morning session of the court; that after it was given the noon recess was taken; that after the noon recess the plaintiffs called two more witnesses and then rested their ease, and that after the plaintiffs had rested this motion was made. The court refused to consider it on the ground that it came too late, and in our opinion the court’s action was entirely justified. The testimony was introduced without objection made when it was offered. Under our practice a motion to strike out testimony must be made immediately after its admission or as soon thereafter as its illegality might have been discovered. There is no explanation for the delay in making the motion in the present case, and in the absence of such explanation the action of the '’ourt, as we have already stated, was entirely proper.

The rule to show cause will be discharged.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

CHOON’S DESIGN INC., 

a Michigan corporation, 

 

 Plaintiff 

 Case No. 2:14-cv-11802-RHC-DRG 

v. Hon. Robert H. Cleland 

 

JAYFINN LLC, 

an Arizona limited liability company, 

 

 Defendant 

STIPULATED PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER 

 The parties to this matter having stipulated to the terms set forth below, and 

the Court being otherwise duly advised in the premises; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

 (A) Defendant Jayfinn LLC (“Jayfinn”), and all persons acting in concert 

with it, are permanently restrained and enjoined, directly or indirectly, from selling 

any looms which will infringe upon United States Patent Nos. 8,485,565 or 

8,684,420, or U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,345,796. 

 (B) Jayfinn represents and warrants that it is no longer in possession of 

any looms, or any other looms for use with elastic bands. 

 (C) This Order shall remain in effect as it relates to each of the patents 

until the date of expiration of each of the respective patents. This Order shall 

remain in effect as it relates to the trademark as long as the trademark exists. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: October 7, 2014 s/Robert H. Cleland 

 Honorable Robert H. Cleland 

2:14-cv-11802-RHC-DRG Doc # 15 Filed 10/07/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 157
Stipulated and Agreed to as to Form and Substance: 

CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.

/s/ Timothy J. Murphy 

Theodore W. Olds, III (P42004) 

Brian S. Tobin (P67621) 

Timothy J. Murphy (P77041) 

Carlson Gaskey & Olds, P.C. 

400 W. Maple, Suite 350 

Birmingham, Michigan 48009 

Telephone: (248) 988-8360 

Facsimile: (248) 988-8363 

Email:tmurphy@cgolaw.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff Choon’s Design Inc.

The Keith Miller Law Group PLLC 

/s/ Keith A. Miller_________________

Keith A. Miller 

The Keith Miller Law Group PLLC 

15725 W. Berkeley Rd. 

Goodyear, AZ 85395 

(480) 241-7306 

keith@keithmillerpllc.com

W. David Conwill II (P72609) 

Smith, Martin, Powers & Knier, P.C. 

Local Counsel 

P.O. Box 219 

Bay City, MI 48707-0219 

(989) 892-3924 

dconwill@smpklaw.com

Counsel for Defendant Jayfinn LLC 

Dated: September 30, 2014

2:14-cv-11802-RHC-DRG Doc # 15 Filed 10/07/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 158
# C_2013009EN.01003601.xml

| 12.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2012 — Atlas v OHIM — Couleurs de Tollens (ARTIS)

(Case T-558/11) (1)

1

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

2013/C 9/63

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Atlas sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Couleurs de Tollens (Clichy, France) (represented by J.-G. Monin, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 July 2011 (Case R 1253/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Couleurs de Tollens-Agora and Atlas sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Atlas sp. z o.o. to pay the costs, including those incurred by Couleurs de Tollens during the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Atlas sp. z o.o. to pay the costs, including those incurred by Couleurs de Tollens during the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.

1

---