alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011282EN.01004601.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/46

---

Action brought on 1 August 2011 — Maharishi Foundation v OHIM (MÉDITATION TRANSCENDANTALE)

(Case T-426/11)

2011/C 282/84

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Maharishi Foundation Ltd (St. Helier, Jersey) (represented by: A. Meijboom, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 April 2011 in case R 1294/2010-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 April 2011 in case R 1294/2010-2;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MÉDITATION TRANSCENDANTALE’ for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 41, 44 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 8246704

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application for a Community trade mark, for part of the goods and services

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the Examination Division for further prosecution

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The applicant puts forward four pleas in law: (i) infringement of Articles 75 and 7(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal did not explicitly decided on Article 7(1)(a) of CTMR, but did, nevertheless, consider that the mark ‘MÉDITATION TRANSCENDANTALE’ is generic; (ii) infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly decided that the mark is devoid of any distinctive character; (iii) infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly concluded that the mark consists exclusively of indications, which may serve, in trade, to designate characteristics of the goods or services, for which applicant filed the mark; and (iv) infringement of Article 7(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly decided that the mark has not become distinctive in relation to the goods or services, for which registration is requested in consequence of the use, which has been made of it.

Pleas in law:

---
§ 178.210 Stability information. ( a ) Stability information (stability details indicated on the Certificate of Inspection, a stability letter, or a stability booklet), is required on certain vessels by paragraphs (b), (c), or (d) of this section. Enough stability information, including stability calculations and assumptions made to use them, must be provided to allow the master to be able to determine operating guidelines, loading restrictions, and ensure compliance with the applicable intact and damage stability regulations of this chapter.
( b ) A vessel which, under § 178.310 of this part, complies with requirements in subchapter S of this chapter, must have stability details on the vessel's Certificate of Inspection, a stability letter issued by the cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) or the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center, or an approved stability booklet. The form in which the stability information must be contained (*i.e.*, stability details on the Certificate of Inspection, a stability letter, or a stability booklet) will be determined by the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center.
( c ) When necessary for safe operation, the cognizant OCMI may place specific stability restrictions in a stability letter or on the Certificate of Inspection of a vessel not more than 65 feet (19.8 meters) in length, which, under § 178.310 of this part, complies with the requirements of § 178.320 of this part.
( d ) Each pontoon vessel must have a stability letter and each stability letter issued after March 14, 2011 must be issued by the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 966, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by USCG-2007-0030, 75 FR 78087, Dec. 14, 2010]
# C_2013225EN.01002902.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/29

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Massimo Sperindeo

(Case C-144/12) (1)

1

(Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - European order for payment procedure - Articles 6 and 17 - Opposition to the European order for payment without any challenge to the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Article 24 - Entering of an appearance of the defendant before the court seised - Applicability in the context of the European order for payment procedure)

2013/C 225/48

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Massimo Sperindeo

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1) and of Article 17 thereof, in conjunction with Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction of the court seised by virtue of the entering of an appearance by the defendant in the absence of any challenge to jurisdiction and of a defence on the merits — Whether applicable in the case of the European order for payment procedure — If so, whether the defendant may challenge the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State after having entered an appearance in the same case before a court of that State before which he lodged a statement of opposition to the order for payment and raised arguments on the substance of the case

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, read in conjunction with Article 17 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a statement of opposition to a European order for payment that does not contain any challenge to the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin cannot be regarded as constituting the entering of an appearance within the meaning of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, and the fact that the defendant has, in the statement of opposition lodged, put forward arguments relating to the substance of the case is irrelevant in that regard.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.

1

---
# C_2012049EN.01002902.xml

| 18.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/29

---

Action brought on 14 December 2011 — Heads! v OHIM (HEADS)

(Case T-639/11)

2012/C 49/53

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Heads! GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by A. Jaeger-Lenz and T. Bösling, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 October 2011 in Case R 2348/2010-1 in so far as the registration of trade mark No 8327926 ‘HEADS’ for services in Class 35 (Business management; Business administration; Personnel and management consulting services; Personnel marketing; Recruitment of specialist and senior staff; Provision of temporary specialist and senior staff (temporary management)) was refused; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 October 2011 in Case R 2348/2010-1 in so far as the registration of trade mark No 8327926 ‘HEADS’ for services in Class 35 (Business management; Business administration; Personnel and management consulting services; Personnel marketing; Recruitment of specialist and senior staff; Provision of temporary specialist and senior staff (temporary management)) was refused;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘HEADS’ for services in Class 35.

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed in part.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 since the Community trade mark at issue has distinctive character and since the Board of Appeal did not make any specific findings with regard to the ground for refusal under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on which its decision is based; wrongfully took as a basis for its assessment word combinations not covered by the application for registration; wrongly relied on a decision of the (German) Federal Patent Court; and the conclusions drawn from the presumed point of view of the target public do not apply.

Pleas in law:

---
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Stanton Wayne Yates, Appellant

No. 06

- 16

- 00012

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 8th District Court of Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No.

1525086 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss

and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant, Stanton Wayne Yates, has adequately indicated his inability to

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED NOVEMB ER 9, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
# Proposed label

# Tw **inLink TM**  

# Cotton **INSECT RESISTA NT COTTON SEED**  Insect- resistant cotton seed that produces insecticidal proteins Cry1Ab and Cry2Ae from Bacillus thuringiensis . For control of Cotton Bollworm, Tobacco Budworm, Pink Bollworm, Fall Armywo rm, and Beet Armyworm . **Active Ingredient s**  **:** Bacillus thuringiensis Cry 1Ab protein and the genetic material (from plasmid pTDL008) necessary for its production in Event T304 -40 x GHB119 cotton (BCS - GHØØ4 - 7 x BCS - GH GHØØ5 - 8)

................................. ................................................................................... 0.000643 – 0.001176 %* Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ae protein and the genetic material (from plasmid pT EM12 ) necessary for its production in Event T304 -40 x GHB119 cotton (BC S - GHØØ4 - 7 x BCS - GH GHØØ5 - 8)

..................................................................... .................. ... ....... 0.001648 – 0.005176 %* **Inert Ingredient :**  S ubstance produced by a herbicide tolerance gene and its controlling sequences (from plasmid s pTDL008 and pTEM12 ) necessary for its production in Event T304 -40 x GHB119 cotton (BCS - GHØØ4 - 7 x BCS - GH GHØØ5 - 8) ...... ......................... ............ ... 0.038352 – 0.073077 %

______________________________________________________________ ________________________ * Percentage (wt/wt) on a dry weigh t basis as expressed in whole cotton pl ants .



### KEEP OUT OF REA**CH OF CHILDREN**

**CA UTION** 

EPA REGISTRATION NUMBER: 264 - RNOA EPA ESTABLISHMENT NUMBER: 000264 - TX- 004 Ba yer CropScience 2 T. W. Alexander Dr. Research Triangle Park , NC 27709**DIRECTIONS FOR USE**

It is a violation of federal law to u se this product in any manner inconsistent with its labeling. No commercial planting of this product is permitted south of Route 60 in Florida. Commercial planting of this product is prohibited in Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. Bt cotton is not permitted to be planted in the following counties of the Texas panhandle: Dallam, Sherman, Hansford, Ochiltree, Lipscomb, Hartley, Moore, Hutchinson, Roberts and Carlson.

**USE PA TTERN**  CROP PESTS

Cotton Cotton Bollworm Tobacco Budworm Pink Bo llworm Beet Arm yworm EPA Accepted: __/__/__
§ 111.81-1 Outlet boxes and junction boxes; general. ( a ) The requirements of this subpart apply to each outlet box used with a lighting fixture, wiring device, or similar item, including each separately installed connection and junction box.
( b ) An outlet box must be at each outlet, switch, receptacle, or junction point.
( c ) Each outlet or junction box must have a cover unless a fixture canopy, switch cover, receptacle cover, or other cover is used.
( d ) As appropriate, each outlet-box or junction-box installation must meet the following standards (all incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter): Article 314 of NFPA 70; ANSI/UL 50; ANSI/UL 514A, ANSI/UL 514B, and ANSI/UL 514C; IEC 60092-101:2018; IEC 60092-201:2019; IEC 60092-306:2009; IEC 60092-352:2005; IEC 60092-401:1980; and IEC 60092-502:1999.
( e ) Each outlet or junction box must be securely attached to its mounting and be affixed so as to maintain its designated degree of protection.
( f ) Each outlet and junction box must be suitable for the environment in which it is installed and be constructed to the appropriate NEMA or IEC standard.
[CGD 74-125A, 47 FR 15236, Apr. 8, 1982, as amended by CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28283, June 4, 1996; USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65199, Oct. 31, 2008; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60153, Sept. 30, 2013; USCG-2020-0075, 88 FR 16365, Mar. 16, 2023]
# C_2011340EN.01003001.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/30

---

Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Sanofi Pasteur MSD v OHIM — Mundipharma (Representation of a device of crossing sickles)

(Case T-502/11)

2011/C 340/59

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC (Lyon, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mundipharma AG (Basel, Switzerland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 July 2011 in case R 1904/2010-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 July 2011 in case R 1904/2010-4;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant 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: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark representing a device of crossing sickles, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 5164561

Community trade mark concerned:

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

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: French trade mark registration No 94500834, of the figurative mark representing a device of ribbons, for goods in class 5; International trade mark registration No 620636, of the figurative mark representing a device of ribbons, for goods in class 5; International trade mark registration No 627401, of the figurative mark representing a device of ribbons, for goods in class 5

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 76 and 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier marks was no longer raised in the appeal proceedings, and did not properly assess the likelihood of confusion.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2013114EN.01003401.xml

| 20.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-370/11) (1)

1

(Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 - Benchmarks to be applied to calculate the allocation of emission allowances - Equal treatment - Proportionality)

2013/C 114/54

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna, C. Herma and M. Nowacki, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White, K. Herrmann and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.

1

---
Order entered December 10, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01282-CV

IN RE HILLVIEW VILLAGE, LP AND FIRESIDE CUSTOM HOMES, LLC, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-04442-2018

ORDER

Before Justices Lang-Miers, Fillmore, and Stoddart

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relators’ petition for writ of 

mandamus.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 21.1



List of Subsidiaries of Issuer



|                                                          |  |                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------
|                                                          |  | Percentage of SharesOwned by Issuer
|Micro-Filtration, Inc.; incorporated in Michigan          |  | 100%                               
|Numation Inc.; incorporated in Michigan                   |  | 90%                                
|Numatech Inc.; incorporated in Michigan                   |  | 88%                                
|I.A.E. Incorporated; incorporated in Michigan             |  | 100%                               
|Ultra Air Products, Inc.; incorporated in Michigan        |  | 100%                               
|Microsmith, Inc.; incorporated in Arizona                 |  | 100%                               
|Numatics B.V.; organized in the Netherlands               |  | 100%                               
|Numatics S.A. de C.V.; organized in Mexico                |  | 99%                                
|Numatics S.A.R.L.; organized in France                    |  | 99%                                
|Numatics Ltd.; organized in the United Kingdom            |  | 99%                                
|Numatics Ltd.; organized in Canada                        |  | 100%                               
|NAC Beteilingungs GmbH; organized in Germany              |  | 100%                               
|Numatics GmbH; organized in Germany                       |  | 100%                               
|Numatics K.F.T.; organized in Hungary                     |  | 100%                               
|Numatics Ltd; organized in Taiwan                         |  | 91%                                
|Numatics S.R.L.; organized in Italy                       |  | 99%                                
|Empire Automation Systems, Inc.; incorporated in New York |  | 100%                               
|Numatics Spain S.L.; organized in Spain                   |  | 100%
§ 25.10-2 Definitions. As used in this subpart: *Dealer* means any person who is engaged in the sale and distribution of vessels to purchasers who the seller in good faith believes to be purchasing any such vessel for purposes other than resale.
*Distributor* means any person engaged in the sale and distribution of vessels for the purpose of resale.
*Manufacturer* means any person engaged in: ( 1 ) The manufacture, construction, or assembly of vessels, or
( 2 ) The importation of vessels into the United States for subsequent sale.
*Navigation lights* are those lights prescribed by the Navigation Rules (Commandant Instruction 16672.2 series) to indicate a vessel's presence, type, operation, and relative heading.