alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THIS DEED,  made ________ day of November,  1998, by and between HAROLD
N. SPURLOCK and DAPHNE R.  SPURLOCK,  husband and wife, to be indexed as grantor
(the "Grantor"),  and SPURLOCK ADHESIVES,  INC., a Virginia  corporation,  to be
indexed as grantee(s) (the "Grantee(s)"), provides as follows:

                              W I T N E S S E T H :


         That for and in  consideration  of the sum of Ten Dollars  ($10.00) and
other good and valuable consideration,  the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged,  the Grantor does hereby grant and convey unto the Grantee,
with SPECIAL WARRANTY of Title, the following described real estate, to-wit:


                 SEE SCHEDULE A ATTACHED HERETO AS A PART HEREOF


         This   conveyance   is  made   expressly   subject  to  such   recorded
restrictions,  conditions and easements as may lawfully apply to the real estate
and to such state of facts as would be shown by a current  survey and inspection
thereof.



                                       1
<PAGE>


         WITNESS the following signatures:


                                              /s/ Harold N. Spurlock
                                              ----------------------------
                                              Harold N. Spurlock, Grantor


                                              /s/ Daphne R. Spurlock
                                              ----------------------------
                                              Daphne R. Spurlock, Grantor


COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

CITY OF PETERSBURG, to-wit:

         The foregoing deed was acknowledged  before me, the undersigned  Notary
Public, in my jurisdiction aforesaid, this 5 day of November, 1998, by Harold
N. Spurlock and Daphne R. Spurlock, husband and wife, Grantors.
         My Commission expires:        2 28 2002      . 
                               -----------------------


                             /s/ Peggy K. Seward
                        -------------------------------------
                                Notary Public


Grantee's Address:

PO Box 8
Waverly, VA  23890





                                       2
<PAGE>



                                    Exhibit A



ALL that  certain  tract or parcel of land lying and being  situated  in Waverly
Magisterial  District,  Sussex County,  Virginia,  containing 32 acres,  more or
less,  by  estimation,  but sold in gross and not by the acre,  and bound on the
north by U.S.  Route  460,  on the east by Harold N.  Spurlock,  on the south by
Norfolk and Western Railway  Company,  and on the West by land owned by the Town
of Waverly.

BEING  the same  real  estate  conveyed  to Harold  N.  Spurlock  and  Daphne R.
Spurlock, as tenants by the entirety with the right of survivorship as at common
law, by deed from Lone Star Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation, dated June
7, 1989,  recorded June 14, 1989, Clerk's Office,  Circuit Court, Sussex County,
Virginia, Deed Book 120, page 243.
# C_2011238EN.01003302.xml

| 13.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/33

---

Action brought on 21 June 2011 — Morelli v OHIM — Associazione Nazionale Circolo del Popolo della Libertà (PARTITO DELLA LIBERTÀ)

(Case T-321/11)

2011/C 238/57

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Raffaello Morelli (Livorno, Italy) (represented by: G. Frenelli, 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: Associazione Nazionale Circolo del Popolo della Libertà (Milan, Italy)

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 First Board of Appeal’s decision of 17 March 2011 and that of the Opposition Division of 14 May 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the First Board of Appeal’s decision of 17 March 2011 and that of the Opposition Division of 14 May 2010;

| — | declare that the applicant’s opposition to the application for registration of a trade mark No 5.890.009 is upheld and refuse the application for that mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the applicant’s opposition to the application for registration of a trade mark No 5.890.009 is upheld and refuse the application for that mark;

| — | order the Associazione Nazionale Circolo del Popolo della Libertà to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Associazione Nazionale Circolo del Popolo della Libertà to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Associazione Nazionale Circolo del Popolo della Libertà

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘PARTITO DELLA LIBERTÀ’ (application for registration No 5.890.009), for goods and services in classes 9, 14, 16, 24, 25, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42 and 45.

Community trade mark concerned:

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

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Domain name ‘partitodellaliberta.it’, assigned by the Autorità proposta all’assegnazione dei domini ‘it’ to Raffaello Morelli on 9 August 2004, which the opponents claimed was used in the course of trade for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 38, 41 and 45

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, incorrect appraisal of ‘use in the course of trade’ with reference to a name used in the sphere of politics and incorrect appraisal of the documents proving business use of the earlier sign.

Pleas in law:

---
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending April 8, 2006

----

FormsForms  -- final Board review to extend without revision the Bank Holding Company Report of Insured Depository Institutions' Section 23A Transactions with Affiliates (FR Y-8), and to discontinue the Weekly Report of Eurodollar Liabilities Held by Selected U.S. Addresses at Foreign Offices of U.S. Banks (FR 2050) and Report of Repurchase Agreements (RPs) on U.S. Government and Federal Agency Securities with Specified Holders (FR 2415).					-Approved, March 31, 2006 					(AC)

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: April 13, 2006
§ 25.26-20 Other manned uninspected commercial vessels. ( a ) The owner of a manned uninspected commercial vessel 11 meters (36 feet) or more in length, other than a vessel under § 25.26-5 or § 25.26-10 or under paragraph (b) of this section, shall ensure that the vessel does not operate on the high seas or beyond three miles from the coastline of the Great Lakes, unless it has on board a float-free, automatically activated Category 1 406 MHz EPIRB stowed in a manner so that it will float free if the vessel sinks.
( b ) The owner of a manned uninspected commercial vessel less than 11 meters (36 feet) in length, or 11 meters or more in length which has a builder's certification that the vessel is constructed with sufficient inherently buoyant material to keep the flooded vessel afloat, shall ensure that the vessel does not operate on the high seas or beyond three miles from the coastline of the Great Lakes, unless it has installed in a readily accessible location at or near the principal steering station— ( 1 ) A manually activated Category 2 406 MHz EPIRB; or
( 2 ) A float-free, automatically activated Category 1 406 MHz EPIRB.
[CGD 87-016a, 58 FR 13367, Mar. 10, 1993; 58 FR 27658, May 11, 1993, as amended by CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51196, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-1998-4442, 63 FR 52189, Sept. 30, 1998]
#### MARY DOYLE, Appellant, *v.*THE RECORDER PRINTING COMPANY OF FAYETTEVILLE, NEW YORK, Respondent.

*Staying proceedings until costs of a former action are paid*— how *the identity of the two actions may he established.*

Appeal from an order of the Oswego Special' Term staying the plaintiff’s proceedings in this action, until the defendant’s costs in a former action, commenced by the same plaintiff, are paid.

The former action having been dismissed before service of a complaint therein a cpiestion arose upon the motion, which resulted in the order from which this appeal is taken, whether the two suits were brought upon the same identical cause of action. The complaint in the present action is for an alleged libel published in June, 1882. The first action was begun subsequently to such publication, and the plaintiff .claims in the affidavits read by her in opposition to the motion that such suit was not brought to recover damages for the alleged libel, but was brought to procure-an injunction restraining the defendant from libelling the plaintiff.

The court at General Term said: “ The judge at Special Term seems to have believed the declarations of the plaintiff’s attorney on that point, as sworn to in the moving affidavits, to the effect that the two actions were for the same cause, rather than the averments in the opposing affidavits as to the cause of action in the first suit, and we see no reason to disturb his conclusion in that respect. The appellant’s counsel has called our attention to the recent case of *Phelps*v. *Gee*(29 Iiun, 202). That case does not aid the appellant for the reason that the only question decided by it does not appear to have been raised in the present case at Special Term. The appeal papers do not show that any objection was made to the nature of the evidence by which the defendant sought to show the cause of action for which the first suit was brought, and the objection éannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The claim of the plaintiff’s attorney that the motion should have been denied for the reason that no demand had been made for the payment of tlie costs in the former action, and no execution had been issued to *646collect the'samé, and that the defendant was guilty of laches in not making the motion at the first opportunity, cannot be maintained.”

*S. J.*Billington, for the appellant.

*A. W.*Wiliam, for the respondent.

Opinion by

Smith, P. J".;

Hardin and Barker, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
---

TRANS-ORIENT PETROLEUM LTD. SHARE OPTION PLANMarch 14, 2008

OPTION COMMITMENT

Notice is hereby given that, effective this 14th day
of March, 2008 (the Effective Date) TRANS-ORIENT PETROLEUM LTD. (the
Company) has granted to Drew Cadenhead, an Option to acquire 500,000 Common
Shares (Optioned Shares) up to 5:00 p.m. Pacific time on the 14th
day of March, 2013 (the Expiry Date) at a Exercise Price of US$0.50 per share.
Optioned Shares may be acquired as follows:

| | (a) | 1/3 of the total number of Optioned Shares granted will
      vest six months after the Effective Date;                     
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                             
| | (b) | a further 1/3 of the total number of Optioned Shares
      granted will vest one year after the Effective Date; and         
| |     |                                                                                                                             
| | (c) | the remaining 1/3 of the total number of Optioned Shares
      granted will vest eighteen months after the Effective
  Date.

In the event that the Company achieves Tier 1 status on the TSX
Venture Exchange, the Company will grant to Drew Cadenhead an additional option
to acquire 500,000 Common Shares (Additional Optioned Shares) exercisable at
the market price on the date the Additional Optioned Shares are granted. The
grant of the Additional Optioned Shares will be made subject to the terms and
conditions of the Companys Share Option Plan and evidenced by an Option
Commitment.

The grant of the Optioned Shares evidenced hereby is made
subject to the terms and conditions of the Companys Share Option Plan, the
terms and conditions of which are hereby incorporated in this Option Commitment.

To exercise your Option, deliver to the Company at its then
principal business office, a written notice specifying the number of Optioned
Shares you wish to acquire, together with cash or a certified cheque payable to
the Company for the aggregate Exercise Price. A certificate for the Optioned
Shares so acquired will be issued by the transfer agent as soon as practicable
thereafter and will bear a legend stipulating any resale restrictions required
under applicable securities laws.



TRANS-ORIENT PETROLEUM LTD.

/s/Garth
JohnsonPresident

---

- 2 -

I hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of the Plan and agree to
be bound by the terms of the Plan. This commitment supersedes any prior Option
or commitment made to me.

OPTIONEE

/s/Drew
Cadenhead

Name:            
________________________________

Print
Name:    ________________________________

Address:        ________________________________

________________________________

---
**Exhibit 31.1****Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, Ralph Schmitt, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sipex Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.     Date:August 17, 2006           /s/ Ralph Schmitt     Ralph Schmitt    Chief Executive Officer
Date Maintenance Calibration Firmware	Update Status Test	Flight 6/13/15Initial	Inspection	after	purchase Compass	Calibration Manufacture	Firmware	Update	to	controller	and	UASGo Completed	by	Wiggins 7/1/15 Full	Service None Ground	Station	Update	Software	Update Go Completed	by	Wiggins 7/10/15 Partial	Service None Manufacture	Firmware	Update	to	controller	and	UASGo Completed	by	Wiggins 7/25/15 Full	Service None None Go Completed	by	Wiggins 8/2/15 Full	Service Compass	Calibration	(Due	to	New	Location:	San	Diego	California) None Go Completed	by	Wiggins

Full	Service:	Inspection	of	UAS	for	damages,	Oil	motors,	tighten	any	loose	screws	on	motor	pod	and	landing	gear,	Check	for	Firmware	upgrades,	Complete	Calibrations	if	needed Partial	Service:	Check	for	Firmware	Upgrades,	Inspection	of	UAS	for	Damages,	inspection	of	screw	on	motor	pod	and	landing	gear
# C_2012165EN.01001902.xml

| 9.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2012 — Leifheit v OHIM (EcoPerfect)

(Case T-328/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark EcoPerfect - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 165/33

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Leifheit AG (Nassau, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 March 2011 (Case R 1658/2010-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign EcoPerfect as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Leifheit AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Leifheit AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.

1

---
**CERTIFICATION      OF CEO AND CFO**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**

**PURSUANT      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|  | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (1) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of                the                Company. |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                  |                                                                                |                              |
|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| Dated:              November 14, 2006 |                                                                                | /s/              Matthew D. Rosen |
|                                  | Matthew                D. RosenPresident                and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                  |                                                                    |                            |
|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|
| Dated:              November 14, 2006 |                                                                    | /s/              Barbara Hughes |
|                                  | Barbara                  HughesChief                  Financial Officer |

----
# C_2012258EN.01001803.xml

| 25.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Vermop Salmon v OHIM — Leifheit (Clean Twist)

(Case T-61/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark Clean Twist - Earlier Community word marks TWIX and TWIXSTER - Relative ground of refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 258/32

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vermop Salmon GmbH (Gilching, Germany) (represented by: W. von der Osten-Sacken, M. Ring and O. Sude, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Leifheit AG (Nassau, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2010 (Case R 671/2010-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Vermop Salmon GmbH and Leifheit AG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vermop Salmon GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vermop Salmon GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.

1

---