alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012065EN.01001303.xml

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/13

---

Action brought on 5 December 2011 — Hostel Drap v OHIM — Aznar textil (MY drap)

(Case T-636/11)

2012/C 65/26

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hostel Drap, SL (Monistrol de Montserrat, Spain) (represented by: C. Prat, 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: Aznar textil, SL (Paterna, Spain)

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 decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 September 2011 in Case R 2127/2010-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 September 2011 in Case R 2127/2010-2;

| — | reject the opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition;

| — | refer the case back to the OHIM for it to register the mark applied for in all the classes in respect of which registration is sought; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the OHIM for it to register the mark applied for in all the classes in respect of which registration is sought;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

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: Figurative mark ‘MY drap’ for goods in Classes 16, 21 and 24

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Aznar textil, SL

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark ‘BON DRAP’ for goods in Classes 23, 24 and 26, which is well known in the Community

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, since the conflicting marks are not similar and there is no likelihood of confusion.

Pleas in law:

---
§ 197.322 Surface-supplied helmets and masks. ( a ) Each surface-supplied helmet or mask must have— ( 1 ) A nonreturn valve at the attachment point between helmet or mask and umbilical that closes readily and positively;
( 2 ) An exhaust valve; and
( 3 ) A two-way voice communication system between the diver and the dive location or bell.
( b ) Each surface-supplied air helmet or mask must— ( 1 ) Ventilate at least 4.5 ACFM at any depth at which it is operated; or
( 2 ) Be able to maintain the diver's inspired carbon dioxide partial pressure below 0.02 ATA when the diver is producing carbon dioxide at the rate of 1.6 standard liters per minute.
§ 28.880 Hydraulic equipment. ( a ) Each hydraulic system must be so designed and installed that proper operation of the system is not affected by back pressure in the system.
( b ) Piping and piping components must be designed with a burst pressure of not less than four times the system's maximum operating pressure.
( c ) Each hydraulic system must be equipped with at least one pressure relieving device set to relieve at the system's maximum operating pressure.
( d ) All material in a hydraulic system must be suitable for use with the hydraulic fluid used and must be of such chemical and physical properties as to remain ductile at the lowest operating temperature likely to be encountered by the vessel.
( e ) Except for hydraulic steering equipment, controls for operating hydraulic equipment must be located where the operator has an unobstructed view of the controls for operating hydraulic equipment and the adjacent work area. Protection shall be afforded to the operator of hydraulic equipment against falling or swinging objects and/or cargo.
( f ) Controls for hydraulic equipment must be so arranged that the operator is able to quickly disengage the equipment in an emergency.
( g ) Hydraulically operated machinery must be fail-safe or equipped with a holding device to prevent uncontrolled movement or sudden loss of control due to loss of hydraulic system pressure. A system is considered to be fail-safe if a component failure results in a slow and controlled release of the load so as not to endanger personnel.
( h ) Nonmetallic flexible hose assemblies must only be used between two points of relative motion, limited to the least amount of length that will afford maximum multidirectional movement of the equipment served.
( i ) Hose end fittings must comply with SAE J1475, (Hydraulic Hose Fittings For Marine Applications). Field attachable fittings must be installed following the manufacturer's recommended practice (method).
( j ) Nonmetallic flexible hose shall be marked with the manufacturer's name or trademark, type or catalog number and maximum allowable working pressure.
( k ) Existing hydraulic piping, nonmetallic hose assemblies, and components may be continued in service so long as they are maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Coast Guard Representative, but all new installations, or replacements shall meet the applicable specifications or requirements of this section.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)         **

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned Officers of Fusion Telecommunications International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the*“Company”*), does hereby certify, to such Officer’s knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the*“Form 10-Q”*) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange        Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of June 30, 2008 and December 31, 2007 and for the three (3) and six (6) month periods ended June 30, 2008 and 2007.

|                        | By: /S/ MATTHEW D. ROSEN                                                                                  |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |              MATTHEW D. ROSEN                 |
|  Date: August 14, 2008 |               as Chief Executive Officer |

|                        | By: /S/ BARBARA HUGHES                                                                              |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |              BARBARA HUGHES             |
|  Date: August 14, 2008 |              as Chief Financial Officer |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will            be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Algernon S. Sullivan *v.*The Remington Sewing Machine Company.

Motion to resettle denied.
CITYOFRHINELANDER 

Office of the Mayor Home of the Hodag 

January 9,2012 

U. S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Essential Air Service Division • -

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE i : ^ 

Washington, DC 20590 

Attn: Mr. Dennis J. DeVany, Chief Essential Air Service Division 'r 

R£: Docket OST-2011-0109 Rhinelander, Wisconsin 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

As Mayor of the City of Rhinelander, I have received the proposal by Great Lakes Airlines. Our 

Airport Commission has provided me a review of the proposal and based on the Request for 

Proposals we concur with Great Lakes three round trips per day during off peak months with an 

increased flight schedule during our peak summer months to be determined by Great Lakes to 

meet the historic traffic demands. 

The City of Rhinelander and its surrounding communities depend on this critical air service to 

support business, tourism, and economic growth to the region. It will be critical that Great Lakes 

and Delta Airlines coordinate an upgrade of electronic communication systems to enable Great 

Lakes to provide Delta a reservation, boarding passes and Sky Miles processing, a seamless 

process to the traveling public. 

In partnership with the Commission we are looking forward to working closely with Great Lakes 

Airlines to make this crucial service successful and to grow our market to its fullest potential. 

Sincerely 

/PRichard J. JoHns 

Mayor 

cc; Michael Matthews, Airport Commission 

City Hall Telephone (715)365-8600 

135 South Stevens Street Fax (715) 365-8630 

Rhinelander Wl 54501-3434 mayor@rhinelandercityhall.org
# C_2014421EN.01000501.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo — Spain) — Vueling Airlines SA v Instituto Galego de Consumo de la Xunta de Galicia

(Case C-487/12) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air Transport - Common rules for the operation of air services in the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 - Pricing freedom - Checking in baggage - Price supplement - Concept of ‘air fares’ - Consumer protection - Imposition of a fine on an air carrier for an unfair contract term - National law requiring the carriage of passenger and checked-in baggage to be included in the base price of a plane ticket - Whether compatible with EU law))

2014/C 421/06

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vueling Airlines SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Instituto Galego de Consumo de la Xunta de Galicia

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 22(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community must be interpreted as precluding a national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that requires air carriers to carry, in all circumstances, not only the passenger, but also baggage checked in by him, provided that the baggage complies with certain requirements as regards, in particular, its weight, for the price of the plane ticket and without it being possible to charge any price supplement to carry such baggage.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128123 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 128123 

 COA: 250683 

Wayne CC: 03-001006-01 

JAMES CALVIN SISTRUNK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 10, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0123 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 30, 2006 

Clerk
#### § 201.116 Time of filing.

Any depositions to be offered in evidence shall be filed with the presiding officer not later than the close of the offering party's presentation.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEJUAN THORNTON,

Plaintiff, Case No. 14-14118

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

v.

COMERICA BANK,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DISMISSING CLAIM

Pro se Plaintiff DeJuan Thornton (“Thornton”) filed a Complaint against

Defendant Comerica Bank (“Comerica”), and requests to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”). The Court GRANTS Thornton’s request to proceed IFP and DISMISSES his

claim as frivolous. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) provides indigent parties with access to the federal court

system. It says:

[a]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or

defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without

prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that

includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unable to

pay such fees or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action,

defense or appeal and affiant's belief that the person is entitled to redress.

To prevent potential IFP litigants from abusive or petty litigation, § 1915(e)(2)(B) allows

courts to sua sponte dismiss actions that are frivolous, malicious, or which fail to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).

An action is frivolous if “the complaint contains only conclusory allegations and

1

2:14-cv-14118-VAR-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 10/30/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 16
fails to allege any facts, which if proved, would afford a basis for the granting of relief.”

Papas v. Bertrum, 600 F. Supp. 174, 175 (D. Mass. 1985) aff'd, 782 F.2d 1023 (1st Cir.

1985). Moreover, frivolity can occur when a complaint is filled with “vague and largely

incomprehensible claims.” Mayfield v. Collins, 918 F.2d 560, 561 (5th Cir. 1990). 

The Court concludes Thornton’s complaint is frivolous. Thornton says he has a

bank account at Comerica but he cannot access the funds without a court order. He

asks the Court to enter an order granting him access to the account, but he does not

identify under what authority the Court should grant such an order, or exactly what the

order is supposed to say. He does not identify which law he is using to enforce his

rights. In fact, it is unclear whether the Court has jurisdiction over this matter because

Thornton fails to identify any law that entitles him to relief. 

Accordingly, The Court GRANTS Thornton in forma pauperis status, but

DISMISSES his Complaint without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: October 30, 2014

The undersigned certifies that a copy of

this document was served on the

attorneys of record by electronic means or

U.S. Mail on October 30, 2014.

S/Carol A. Pinegar 

Deputy Clerk

2

2:14-cv-14118-VAR-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 10/30/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 17
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 October 7, 2006

----

Bank Holding CompaniesSky Financial Group, Inc., Bowling Green, Ohio  -- to acquire Wells River Bancorp, Inc., Wellsville, and its subsidiary, Perpetual Savings Bank.					-Approved, October 5, 2006 					

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: October 12, 2006
**Exhibit 32.1**
 **Certification Pursuant to**
 **Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
 
 Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Henry R. Carabelli, President and Chief Executive Officer of Pac-West Telecomm, Inc. (the "Company"), certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
 
 1.
The Company's Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "Periodic Report"), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 
 2.
The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company. 
 
 **In Witness Whereof** , the undersigned has set his hands hereto as of the 15th day of November, 2004.
 
 
 /s/Henry R.Carabelli
Henry R. Carabelli
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  2
§ 183.372 Equipment and conductor grounding. ( a ) All metallic enclosures and frames of electrical equipment must be permanently grounded to the hull on a metallic vessel. On a nonmetallic vessel, the enclosures and frames of electrical equipment must be bonded together to a common ground by a normally non-current carrying conductor. Metallic cases of instruments and secondary windings of instrument transformers must be grounded.
( b ) On a nonmetallic vessel, where a ground plate is provided for radio equipment, it must be connected to the common ground.
( c ) Equipment grounding conductors must be sized in accordance with Section 250-96 of NFPA 70 (incorporated by reference; see 46 CFR 175.600), or other standard specified by the Commandant.
( d ) Each insulated grounding conductor of a cable must be identified by one of the following means: ( 1 ) A green braid or green insulation;
( 2 ) Stripping the insulation from the entire exposed length of the grounding conductor; or
( 3 ) Marking the exposed insulation of the grounding conductor with green tape or green adhesive labels.
( e ) Cable armor must not be used to ground electrical equipment or systems.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 997, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65210, Oct. 31, 2008]
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Loral Space & Communications Ltd. for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 1998, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         546,772
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  402,322
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,521
<INVENTORY>                                    191,245
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,241,707
<PP&E>                                       1,859,466
<DEPRECIATION>                                 191,958
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,229,215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          495,591
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    735,896
<COMMON>                                         2,439
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,197,386
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,229,215
<SALES>                                      1,117,721
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,301,702
<CGS>                                          995,405
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,129,874
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              51,209
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (25,628)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,871)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (185,223)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (185,223)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.68)
        

Note: The adoption of SFAS 128 had no effect on reported earnings per share for
      the year ended December 31, 1998.

</TABLE>
##### 



(1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
as of and for the period covered by this Report.
 Dated:  August 13, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Mark S. AllioMark S. AllioChairman of the Board, President
and
Chief Executive Officer Dated:  August 13, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Therese Ann LiutkusTherese Ann Liutkus, CPATreasurer and Chief Financial Officer