alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011319EN.01002401.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/24

---

Action brought on 6 September 2011 — Oster Weinkellerei v OHIM — Viñedos Emiliana (Igama)

(Case T-474/11)

2011/C 319/51

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Oster Weinkellerei KG (Cochem, Germany) (represented by: N. Schindler, 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: Viñedos Emiliana, SA (Santiago, Chile)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

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 22 June 2011 in Case R 637/2010-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 June 2011 in Case R 637/2010-2;

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear its own costs and pay the applicant’s costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear its own costs and pay the applicant’s costs;

| — | In the alternative, stay the proceedings until delivery of a legally binding decision in the invalidity proceedings pending before OHIM concerning filing reference 000005716 C. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, stay the proceedings until delivery of a legally binding decision in the invalidity proceedings pending before OHIM concerning filing reference 000005716 C.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Igama’ for goods in Class 33.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Viñedos Emiliana, SA.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘GAMMA’ for goods in Class 33.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

Pleas in law:

---
#### EMMA McCUSKER, PLAINTIFF, v. PUBLIC SERVICE CO-ORDINATED TRANSPORT, DEFENDANT.

Decided November 8, 1929.

Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justices Kalisch and Campbell.

Eor the rule, *Henry H. Fryling.*

Contra, *Alfred Brenner.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought suit to recover compensation for injuries received by her in a collision between a Public Service Co-ordinated Transport bus, in which she was a passenger, and a bus belonging to the B. & N. Transportation Company. The trial resulted in a verdict in her favor, the jury awarding her $12,500.

The first ground urged before us for setting aside this verdict is that it is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence on the question of the negligence of the driver of the Public Service bus. We have carefully examined the testimony sent up with the rule, and as a result of that conclusion are satisfied that the jury were justified in their finding as to that fact.

It is further contended that the award of $12,500 to the plaintiff is grossly excessive. We cannot say that this so clearly appears as to justify us in interfering with the verdict upon that ground. If the testimony of plaintiff’s doctors is *998
      *to be believed*(and it was for the jury to say whether or not their testimony was convincing), plaintiff’s injuries were very serious and are probably permanent.

Our conclusion is that the rule to show cause should be discharged.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 11
Federal Reserve Bank of: Dallas

## Filings received during the week ending February 11, 2006

|Filer                              | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             | End of Comment Period                                
|---------------------------------- | ------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|FRONTIER BANCSHARES, INC.          | * 3A1         | Frontier Bancshares, Inc., Austin, Texas, and Frontier BN, Inc., Henderson, Nevada, to become bank holding companies by acquiring 100 percent of The First National Bank of Holland, Holland, Texas.                                                                        | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                         | Not available
|Federal Register:                  | Not available
|TEXAS INDEPENDENT BANCSHARES, INC. | * 3A5         | Texas Independent Bancshares, Inc., Texas City, Texas, and T.I.B. Delaware, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, to acquire by merger Southeast Bancorp of Texas, Inc., Winnie, Texas, and indirectly acquire SEBOT, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, and Gulf Coast Bank, Winnie, Texas. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:03/10/2006   
|Newspaper:                         | Not available
|Federal Register:                  | 03/10/2006   

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

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

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
EXHIBIT 10(iv)


 


AMENDMENT
NO. 1

TO THE

McCORMICK & COMPANY, INCORPORATED

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN


 


WHEREAS, McCormick & Company, Incorporated (the “Company”) has
adopted a Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, which was amended and
restated as of June 19, 2001 (the “Plan”);


 


WHEREAS, section 885
of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (the “AJCA”) changed the federal
income tax rules governing nonqualified deferred compensation plans by adding section 409A
to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”), generally effective as of January 1,
2005;


 


WHEREAS, the
Department of the Treasury has not issued guidance of general applicability
under Code section 409A or under AJCA section 885; and


 


WHEREAS, in the absence of such guidance, the Company considers it
necessary to amend and administer the Plan based on a reasonable interpretation
of Code section 409A and AJCA section 885,


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows:


 


1.1         All provisions of the
Plan shall be deemed amended as necessary to comply with the applicable
requirements of Code section 409A and AJCA section 885.  In the event of any inconsistency between the
terms of the Plan and the applicable requirements of such sections, the
requirements of such sections shall govern.


 


1.2         The Plan shall be
administered in accordance with a reasonable interpretation of the applicable
requirements of Code section 409A and AJCA section 885,
notwithstanding any inconsistency between those requirements and the text of
the Plan.


 


1.3         This Amendment No. 1
shall be effective January 1, 2005, except as otherwise required by Code section 409A
or AJCA section 885.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 1 to the Plan has been executed
on behalf of the Company this 23rd day of December, 2004.


 


	
   

  	
  McCORMICK & COMPANY, INCORPORATED

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   /s/ Karen D. Weatherholtz

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   Karen D. Weatherholtz

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   Senior Vice President – Human
  Relations
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending January 14, 2006

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

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

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION



I, Thomas M. Siebel, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Siebel Systems, Inc.;

2. 	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. 	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included 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 periods presented in this report;

4. 	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining 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 disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) 	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. 	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) 	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) 	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



Date: March 9, 2004



| |     |                     
| | --- | --------------------
| | By: | /s/ Thomas M. Siebel

| |                 
| | ----------------
| | Thomas M. Siebel
| | Chairman and CEO

---
January 1, 2016 U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 Re: Exemption No. 12621 Colorado Aerial Imaging Gregory Bergin greg@coaerialimaging.com Regulatory Docket No. FAA– 2015 –2209 Colorado Aerial Imaging (CAI) is requesting to amend their existing 333 exempti on . CAI has added the following 3 aircraft to their inventory: 1 - DJI F550 Flame Wheel w/ NAZA M V2, E300 power syste m a. Weight - ≈ 2500g b. Size - 550mm c. http://download.dji innovations.com/downloads/flamewheel/en/F550_User_Manual_v1.9_e n.pdf 2 - DJI Phantom 2 with iosd - mini a. Weight - ≈ 1300g b. Size - 350mm c. http://download.dji innovations.com/downloads/phantom_2/en/PHANTOM2_User_Manual _v1.2_en.pdf 3 - DJI Phantom 3 Professional a. Weight - ≈ 1280g b. Size - 590mm c. http://download.dji innovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Professional_ User_Manual_v1.0_en.pdf Li nks for all manuals and more detailed specifications are included as attaching documentation will be too lengthy. CAI is in the process of obtaining N - numbers for all additional aircraft. Thank You, Gregory BerginColorado Aerial Imaging
#### Hattie C. Lamb, Appellant, *v.*Henry M.Willis, Respondent.

*Lamb*v. *Willis,*125 App. Div. 183, affirmed.

(Submitted June 18, 1909;

decided October 5, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered March 11, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action for trespass in cutting trees on plaintiff’s land.

*John J. Crawford*for appellant.

*Robert B. Knowles*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscook and Chase, JJ. Absent: Cray, J.
§ 169.813 Station bills. ( a ) A station bill (muster list) shall be prepared and signed by the master of the vessel. The master shall ensure that the bill is posted in conspicuous locations throughout the vessel, particularly in the living spaces, before the vessel sails.
( b ) The station bill must set forth the special duties and duty station of each member of the ship's company for the various emergencies. The duties must, as far as possible, be comparable with the regular work of the individual. The duties must include at least the following and any other duties necessary for the proper handling of a particular emergency: ( 1 ) The closing of airports, watertight doors, scuppers, sanitary and other discharges which lead through the vessel's hull below the margin line, etc., the stopping of fans and ventilating systems, and the operating of all safety equipment.
( 2 ) The preparing and launching of lifeboats and liferafts.
( 3 ) The extinguishing of fire.
( 4 ) The mustering of guests, if carried, including the following: ( i ) Warning the guests.
( ii ) Seeing that they are dressed and have put on their personal flotation devices in a proper manner.
( iii ) Assembling the guests and directing them to the appointed stations.
( iv ) Keeping order in the passageways and stairways and generally controlling the movement of the guests.
( v ) Seeing that a supply of blankets is taken to the lifeboats.
# C_2012032EN.01002603.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/26

---

Action brought on 31 October 2011 — Viejo Valle v OHIM — Etablissements Coquet (Coffee service set with grooves)

(Case T-566/11)

2012/C 32/55

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Viejo Valle, SA (L'Olleria, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, 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: Etablissements Coquet SA (Saint Léonard de Noblat, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | declare the present action, together with its annexes, admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action, together with its annexes, admissible;

| — | annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 July 2011, in Case R 1054/2010-3; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 July 2011, in Case R 1054/2010-3;

| — | 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

Design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Design No 384.912-0001, representing a decorated service set; a coffee cup and saucer.

Design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community design: the applicant.

Proprietor of the Community design:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: Etablissements Coquet SA.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, since the Community design constitutes an unauthorised use of a work protected by the copyright legislation of a Member State.

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: upheld the application for a declaration of invalidity.

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissed the action.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 and Article 28(1)(b)(iii) of Regulation No 2245/2002, since the defendant has not sufficiently documented the protected work on which the application for a declaration of invalidity is based, nor provided details of its proprietorship, nor its object.

Pleas in law:

---
Fiscal Year2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006Net earnings (loss)
    
    $
    (1,374,970
    )
    
    $
    (735,562
    )
    
    $
    96,461Average shares outstanding
    
    
    9,286,261
    
    
    
    9,234,313
    
    
    
    9,195,415Stock options
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    428,976Warrants assumed converted
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    750,000Assumed treasury stock buyback
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (652,045
    )Convertible redeemable
preferred stock assumed
converted
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Number of shares used in
per common share
computation
    
    
    9,286,261
    
    
    
    9,234,313
    
    
    
    9,722,346Basic net earnings (loss)
per share of common Stock
    
    $
    (.15
    )
    
    $
    (.08
    )
    
    $
    .01Diluted net earnings (loss) per
share of common stock
    
    $
    (.15
    )
    
    $
    (.08
    )
    
    $
    .01
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Case No. 

 ) 

Pointe Physical Therapy LLC, et al ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

INDEX OF EXHIBITS 

Exhibit 

Number Description 

1 Appendix – Pointe 

2 Appendix – New Era 

3 Appendix – Head Diagnosis 

4 New Era I and II Articles of Incorporation 

5 National Provider Identifier (NPI) Registry Details for Pointe Physical Therapy 

6 Michigan Visiting Physicians Articles of Incorporation and related filings 

7 Choice House Call Certificate of Assumed Name 

8 Examples of Prescribing Physicians’ Disability Certificates 

9 Examples of Initial Examinations by treating Physicians 

10 Examples of PT and OT Prescriptions by treating Physicians 

11 Initial and Follow-up Evaluation for Patient NA 

12 Example Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Prescription Forms 

13 Examples of Prescribing Physicians’ and Clinics’ Bills to State Farm 

14 Examples of Initial and Follow-up Visit Reports by Gunabalan 

15 Examples of Initial and Follow-up Visit Reports by Quiroga 

16 Examples of PT and OT Prescriptions regarding Head Injuries by treating Physicians

17 Examples of Initial and Follow-up Visit Reports by Ruden 

18 Examples of Initial and Follow-up Visit Reports by Beale 

19 Examples of Initial and Follow-up Visit Reports by Hoban 

20 Examples of Hoban’s Disability Certificates 

21 Examples of Plans of Treatment and Updated Plans 

2:14-cv-11700-PDB-MJH Doc # 1-1 Filed 04/29/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 96
22 Examples of Progress Notes and Check Lists 

23 Examples of Plans of Treatment by Gunabalan 

24 Example of Michigan Biotech Bill and Bio-Magnetic Report with same address

25 Corporate Filings for Bio-Magnetic; Webpage of Bio-Magnetic; and NPI Registry 

data for Michigan BioTech Partners 

26 Corporation Filing for Orthopedic Surgeons P.C. and Excerpt of 8/14/12 Deposition 

of Eric Page 

27 Appendix – MRIs 

28 Examples of Pointe and New Era PT and OT Bills 

29 Examples of Pointe and New Era PT and OT Progress Reports 

2:14-cv-11700-PDB-MJH Doc # 1-1 Filed 04/29/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 97