alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011269EN.01005002.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/50

---

Action brought on 20 June 2011 — Vinci Energies Schweiz v OHIM — Estavis (Yellow representation of the Brandenburg Gate)

(Case T-327/11)

2011/C 269/112

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vinci Energies Schweiz AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Graf, 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: Estavis AG (Berlin, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

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 31 March 2011 in Case R 231/2010-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 March 2011 in Case R 231/2010-1;

| — | 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

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Estavis AG

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Representation of the Brandenburg Gate claiming the colour honey yellow for goods and services in Classes 6, 7, 9, 11, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41 and 42 — application No 6 585 871

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: the figurative mark ‘ETAVIS’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 7, 9, 11, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42 and 45

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was partially upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Opposition Division’s decision was annulled and the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue due to the at least average distinctive character of the mark on which the opposition is based and the identical nature or high degree of similarity of the signs at issue.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2011080EN.01002301.xml

| 12.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/23

---

Action brought on 19 January 2011 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council

(Case T-24/11)

2011/C 80/44

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bank Refah Kargaran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Decision 2010/644/CSFP of 26 October 2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision 2010/644/CSFP of 26 October 2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | Declare that Decision 2010/413/CSFP does not apply to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that Decision 2010/413/CSFP does not apply to the applicant;

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

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and principal arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-4/11 Export Development Bank of Iran v Council.

Export Development Bank of Iran

Council

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

JOEY DEARDUFF #732738, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

v 

HEIDI WASHINGTON, Director, 

Michigan Department of Corrections 

& JONG CHOI, DDS, Dental 

Director, 

 Defendants. 

NO. 2:14-cv-11691 

HON. LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

MAG. MONA K. MAJZOUB 

 

Daniel E. Manville (P39731) 

Director, Civil Rights Clinic 

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

MSU College of Law 

648 N. Shaw Lane 

East Lansing, MI 48824 

(517) 432-6866 

Daniel.manville@law.msu.edu 

Scott A. Mertens (P60069) 

Sara E. Trudgeon (P82155) 

Michigan Dep’t of Attorney General 

Assistant Attorneys General 

Attorneys for MDOC Defendants 

Heidi Washington & Jong Choi, DDS 

MDOC Division 

P.O. Box 30217 

Lansing, MI 48909 

(517) 335-3055 

MertensS@michigan.gov 

TrudgeonS@michigan.gov 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

STIPULATION REGARDING CLASS REPRESENTATIVES 

 The parties, through counsel, agree that Plaintiffs Melvin Bownes, 

Timothy Brownell, James Gunnels, and Anthony Richardson are the 

only remaining class representatives with certified class claims. 

Therefore, Joey Dearduff, Nicholas Bailey, Timothy Flessner, Leon 

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 278 filed 10/09/19 PageID.7427 Page 1 of 2
2 

Means, John Porter, Kenneth Reeves, Bryan Slone, and Tina Stoll 

should be removed as named parties in this action. 

Approved by counsel: 

/s/Daniel E. Manville /s/ Sara E. Trudgeon 

Daniel E. Manville (P39731) Sara E. Trudgeon (P82155) 

Director, Civil Rights Clinic Michigan Dep’t of Attorney General 

Counsel for Plaintiffs Assistant Attorney General 

 Attorneys for MDOC Defendants Heidi 

 Washington & Jong Choi, DDS 

 

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 278 filed 10/09/19 PageID.7428 Page 2 of 2
# C_2012217EN.01000601.xml

| 21.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Székesfehérvári Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 19 April 2012 — Gábor Fekete v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Középdunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

(Case C-182/12)

2012/C 217/10

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Székesfehérvári Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gábor Fekete

Applicant:

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Középdunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Under Article 561(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (‘the implementing Regulation’) is authorisation granted by the owner of the means of transport established outside the (customs) territory sufficient to establish private use of the means of transport or is private use of the means of transport only possible in the framework of an employment relationship, and thus where provided for (by the owner) in the contract of employment?

1

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code; OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

AMAR GREEN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 550 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 17th day of April, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
-1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ANTHONY LEGION, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

KENNETH T. MCKEE, 

Respondent. 

 / 

Case No. 15-cv-11463 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DAVID R. GRAND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

This matter has come before the Court on Anthony Legion’s (“Petitioner”) memorandum 

of law in support of an amended habeas corpus petition. Although the case number provided on 

the memorandum is 05-40181, the memorandum was treated as a new case and given the number 

15-11463. Petitioner’s attorney has informed the Court that the memorandum should have been 

filed in case number 05-40181 instead of being treated as a new case and that she already filed 

the identical memorandum in case number 05-40181. 

 “[P]laintiffs have no right to maintain two actions on the same subject in the same court, 

against the same defendant at the same time.” Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 139 (2d 

Cir. 2000). Because Petitioner’s attorney filed the memorandum in an active case, which is 

pending before another judge in this District, the logical and most efficient approach to avoiding 

the duplicate filing is to dismiss this case in favor of the earlier case. See Pittman v. Moore, 980 

F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993) (affirming the District Court’s dismissal of a pro se prisoner’s 

complaint that duplicated the allegations raised in another federal lawsuit filed by the same 

2:15-cv-11463-GAD-DRG Doc # 2 Filed 04/30/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 69
-2- 

prisoner). Accordingly, the Court SUMMARILY DISMISSES this case WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE to Petitioner’s right to challenge his state conviction in case number 05-40181.

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 30, 2015 

 /s/Gershwin A Drain 

 Hon. Gershwin A. Drain 

 United States District Court Judge

2:15-cv-11463-GAD-DRG Doc # 2 Filed 04/30/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 70
AIR-09-260-E

August 25, 2010 Exemptio n No. 10124 Regul atory Docket No. FAA-2009-0475

Mr. Otmar Birkner AutoGyro GmbH

Dornierstrasse 6-14

31137 Hildesheim Germany

Dear Mr. Birkner:

This letter is to inform you that we have denied yo ur petition for exemption. It transmits our decision and explains its basis.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated May 14, 2009, you petitioned the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of AutoGyro GmbH for an exemption from §§ 21 .191(i)(3) and 21.193 (e)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). Th e proposed exemption, if granted, would allow AutoGyro GmbH to produce and sell gyroplanes for certification under § 21.191(i) without previously having manufactured and assemble d a gyroplane of the same make and model that has been issued a special airworthiness certificated in the light-sport category under § 21.190.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for n ot publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register

because the requested exemption would not set a pr ecedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detriment al to AutoGyro GmbH.

The FAA recently issued a denial of exemption in ci rcumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In D enial of Exemption No. 10099 (copy enclosed), the FAA did not believe it is in the pub lic interest to permit a manufacturer to sell a make and model of gyroplane (or aircraft kit), elig ible for the issuance of an experimental certificate in the light-sport category, if that ma nufacturer has not yet produced a gyroplane of that make and model that meets the accepted consens us standards.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exem ption, I find that—

• they don’t differ materially from those presented b y the petitioner in the enclosed denial of exemption;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclo sed exemption also apply to the situation you present; and

• a grant of exemption would not be in the public int erest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 an d 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby deny your petition Au toGyro GmbH for an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 21.191(i)(3) and 21.193 (e)(1).

Sincerely,

/s/

K.C. Yanamura Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service

Enclosure
# C_2013079EN.01001501.xml

| 16.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2013 — Bopp v OHIM (Representation of a green octagonal frame)

(Case T-263/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing a green octagonal frame - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Offer of evidence submitted for the first time in the reply - Article 48(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Document sent to OHIM by fax - Applicable rules)

2013/C 79/26

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Carsten Bopp (Glashütten, Germany) (represented by: C. Russ, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel and D. Walicka initially, then by K. Klüpfel and A. Pohlmann, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2011 (Case R 605/2010-4), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing a green octagonal frame.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 March 2011 (Case R 605/2010-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 March 2011 (Case R 605/2010-4);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.

1

---
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: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

## Filings received during the week ending April 1, 2006

|Filer                    | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                           | End of Comment Period                                 
|------------------------ | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|BANK OF THE COMMONWEALTH | * Branch       | Bank of The Commonwealth, Norfolk, Virginia, to establish a branch at 229 West Bute Street, Suite 320, Norfolk, Virginia. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:               | Not available 
|Federal Register:        | Not applicable

## 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
     JUNE 30, 1999 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
     SUCH DOCUMENT.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001071645
<NAME>                        WORLD ACCESS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         98,996
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  106,629
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (9,287)
<INVENTORY>                                    45,216
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               296,483
<PP&E>                                         74,091
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (11,766)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 693,146
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          116,422
<BONDS>                                        115,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1
<COMMON>                                       448
<OTHER-SE>                                     426,343
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   693,146
<SALES>                                        321,251
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               321,251
<CGS>                                          256,322
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  256,322
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               44,081
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,604
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                17,750
<INCOME-TAX>                                   9,357
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            8,393
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (14,315)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,922)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.15)



</TABLE>
# C_2013156EN.01004001.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2013 — Apollo Tyres v OHIM — Endurance Technologies (ENDURANCE)

(Case T-109/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ENDURACE - Earlier Community figurative mark ENDURANCE - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the goods and services - Similarity of the signs - Partial refusal of registration - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion)

2013/C 156/72

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Apollo Tyres AG (Baden, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Szilvasi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Endurance Technologies Pvt Ltd (Aurangabad, India)

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 25 November 2010 (Case R 625/2010-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Endurance Technologies Pvt Ltd and Apollo Tyres AG

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Apollo Tyres AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Apollo Tyres AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.

1

---
#### § 32.40-45 Lighting—T/ALL.

Each berth must have a light.
Exhibit 10.19

                    PHARMACY AND NURSING SERVICES AGREEMENT
                                    BETWEEN
                            M T ULTIMATE HEALTHCARE
                                      AND
                         THE PROMPTCARE COMPANIES, INC.

This  PHARMACY  AND NURSING SERVICES AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is effective as
of  the  8  day of June, 2004 ("the Effective Date") by and between M T Ultimate
Healthcare,  having  its principal place of business at 45 Main Street Brooklyn,
NY  and  a branch office at 2434 Grand Avenue Baldwin,  New York ("Agency"), and
The  PromptCare  Companies having its principal place of business at 51 Terminal
Avenue,  Clark,  New  Jersey,  07066  ("PromptCare").

                                  WITNESSETH :
                                  -------------

WHEREAS,  Agency  provides  home  health nursing services to patients who are in
need  of  such  services at home and who are residents of New York or New Jersey
and  who  are  referred  by  families,  licensed physician, hospitals, and other
health  and  welfare  agencies;  and

WHEREAS,  Agency  is  duly  licensed  in  the  state  of  New  York.

WHEREAS,  PromptCare  is  a  pharmacy  duly licensed by the State of New Jersey,
engaged in the business of dispensing pharmaceuticals and pharmacy services, and
employs  pharmacist(s)  who  are  currently registered  and /or certified in the
State  of  New  Jersey  to  practice  pharmacy;  and

WHEREAS,  PromptCare  desires  to  provide  pharmaceutical  products,  admixture
services, related supplies, as well as additional specific services as described
in  Exhibit  A attached hereto (collectively referred herein as the "Pharmacy"),
    ----------
to  certain  patients  in  New York and New Jersey on the terms set forth below.

WHEREAS,  PromptCare desires to obtain and Agency desires to provide home health
nursing  services  as  described  in  Exhibit  B  attached  hereto (collectively
                                      ----------
referred  to as the "Nursing Services"), to certain patients in New York and New
Jersey  on  terms  set  forth  below.

NOW  THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, the terms and conditions
set  forth  in  this  Agreement,  and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

<PAGE>

IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the
date(s)  indicated  below.

Agency  Name:  M  T  Ultimate Healthcare            PromptCare Companies, Inc.
By:  /s/  Maria  Francois                           By:  /s/  Beverly  Greatorex
Its:  Administrator                                 Its:  Director  of  Nursing
Date:  6/03/04                                      Date:  6/08/04

<PAGE>