alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 4, 2023

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22

- 2056

Lower Tribunal No. 20

- 17285

________________



### Alfredo Rodriguez, et al.

, Petitioner s

,

vs.



### Rohan Halsall

, Respondent.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction

– Prohibition

.

Davis, Giardino, Hrivnak & Okon, PLLC, and Wayne T. Hrivnak (West Palm Beach) , for petitione rs

.

The McFarlane Firm, P.A., and Gregory McFarlane (Ft. Lauderdale)

, for respondent.

Before LINDSEY, HENDON, and LOBREE , JJ.

PER CURIAM.2 Petitioners ( Defendant s below) , Alfredo Rodriguez & Miami Fine

Foods, LLC

, petition this Court for a writ of prohibition following the trial

court’s denial of their motion for disqualification. A sworn motion filed below

in support of the motion alleged the trial cour t made improper comments at

a calendar call. As this C ourt explained in Nguyen v. Nguyen , 229 So. 3d

407 , 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017):

The standard of review of a trial c ourt’s determination on a motion to disqualify is de novo.

The Florida Rules of Judicia l Administration provide for the disqualification of a judge when “the party fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(d)(1). [ 1 ] The legal su fficiency of a motion to disqualify depends on “whether the facts alleged would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.” Livingston v. State , 441 So. 2d 1083, 1087 (Fla. 1983); State v. Borrego , 105 So. 3d 61 6, 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). The allegations of fact that are contained in the motion must be taken
as true, Masten v. State , 159 So. 3d 996, 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015), and “the question of disqualification focuses not on what the judge intended, but rather how the message is received and the basis of the feeling.” Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. 2000

Island Blvd. Condo. Ass ’ n , 153 So. 3d 384, 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (citing Livingston , 441 So. 2d at 1086).

(Citations omitted).

1 The current rule is Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial

Administration 2.330(e)(1).3 Treating the allegations of fact contained in the motion to disqualify as

true, as we must, we conclude that disqualification is w arranted

.

Accordingly, we grant the petition

. We withhold formal issuance of the writ,

confident that the trial judge will promptly issue an order of disqualification.

We remand this cause for reassignment to a successor judge, if one has not

already been reassigned by virtue of the annual judicial rotation of divisions,

and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Petition granted. Cause remanded. Writ issuance withheld.
EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION
                                       OF
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                       AND
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Eliron Yaron, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that the Annual Report on Form
10-KSB of Shelron Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Shelron Group, Inc.


By: /s/ Eliron Yaron
--------------------
Name:   Eliron Yaron
Title:  Chairman, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
NOTE: 

### This orderis nonprecedential. 

# mnlteb**~tate~** 

# (!Courtof**~peaI~** 

# fortbejf 

# eberaI<!CIrcuit

APELDYN CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,



### v. AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AND 

### AU OPTRONICSCORPORATIONAMERICA, Defendants-Appellees,

AND 

### CHI MEl OPTOELECTRONICS CORPORATION

AND 

### CHI MEl OPTOELECTRONICS USAINC., Defendants-Appellees,

AND 

### SAMSUNGELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND 

### SAMSUNGELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Defendants.

2012-1172
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofDelaware in case no. 08-CV-0568, Judge Sue L. Robinson.APELDYN CORP v. AU OPTRONICS 

### ONMOTION

Before SCHALL, 

### CircuitJudge. 

### ORDER 2

Eidos, LLC and Eidos IV, LLC (collectively "Eidos") move for leave to intervene in the appeal. Apeldyn Corporation opposes. This appeal stems from a patent infringement action brought by Apeldyn against AU Optronics and other defendants. Apeldyn and Eidos entered into an agreement in which Eidos financially supported Apeldyn's patent infringement actions in exchange for an interestin the proceeds from the actions and/or licensing efforts. In April, Apeldyn filed a complaint against Eidos in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, alleging that the agreement expired and was no longer in force. That action remains pendingin that districtcourt. Eidos now urges that it has an interest in the appeal because Apeldyn no longer represents Eidos's interests. Eidos argues that their agreement requires Apeldyn and Eidos to agree on counsel, butApeldyn is now represented in the appeal by the counsel who is adverse to Eidos in the Oregon action. Eidos was not a party in the district court infringement action and made no effort to intervene. Under such circumstances, "[a] court of appeals may, but only in an exceptional case for imperative reasons, permit intervention where none was sought in the district court." 

### McKenna v. Pan Am. Petroleum Corp., 303 F.2d 778,779 (5th Cir. 1962). Eidos presents no position relating to the substance ofthe appeal in which its interest is adverse to Apeldyn's. Its unsupported assertion that its interests3 APELDYN CORP v. AU OPTRONICS will not be adequately represented by the appellants do not meet the burden to obtain permission to intervene on the side ofappellants in these circumstances. Moreover, Eidos's concerns regarding the applicability ofits agreementwithApeldyn are before the Oregon districtcourt. Upon considerationthereof, ITIs ORDEREDTHAT: The motion is denied.

FOR THE COURT



## NOV 022012 Date

cc: Scott G. Seidman, Esq. Terrence Duane Garnett, Esq. Donald R. McPhail, Esq. BernardJ. DiMuro, Esq. s24 /s/Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk



## u.s.

## COUftf~~EALS FOR THEFEDERALCIRCUIT



### NOV

## 02**~Ul~** 

### JANHORBALY 

### ClERK
Document

Exhibit 10.55

SECOND AMENDMENT TO 
AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This Second Amendment (the “Amendment”) to that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement by and between Matador Resources Company, a Texas corporation (“Matador”), acting through its Board of Directors, and Bradley M. Robinson (“Employee”) effective August 1, 2018 (as amended by that certain First Amendment entered into as of July 30, 2019, the “Agreement”) is entered into as of December 31, 2020.
WHEREAS, Matador and Employee previously entered into the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Section 28 of the Agreement provides that it may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the parties and Matador and Employee desire to modify certain provisions of the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, Matador and Employee hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows, effective as of the date hereof:
1.Section 3 of the Agreement is restated in its entirety to provide as follows:
3.Term.  Employee’s employment shall be under the terms and conditions of this Agreement and shall expire on March 31, 2021 (the “Term”), subject to earlier termination as provided herein; provided, however, that, beginning on March 31, 2021, the Term shall be extended automatically by one month at the end of each month thereafter unless Matador or Employee gives thirty (30) days written notice to the other that the Term shall not be further extended.  Employee acknowledges and agrees that if he remains employed hereunder immediately prior to expiration of the Term, his employment with the Company shall automatically terminate at 12:00 a.m. central time on the expiration of the Term, and he shall be entitled to receive from the Company only (a) those payments set forth in Section 14(a) of this Agreement, and (b) any vested benefits to which he may be entitled under the Company’s benefit plans and programs, which amounts shall be paid in accordance with the terms of such plans and programs.
4.The parties further acknowledge that, except as specifically amended hereby, all terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged and that the Agreement, as amended hereby, is in full force and effect and confirmed in all respects.  


 [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.]











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Matador and Employee have duly executed this Amendment to be effective as of the date set forth above.
						
	MATADOR RESOURCES COMPANY
		
	By:	/s/ Craig N. Adams
		Craig N. Adams
		Executive Vice President
		
	EMPLOYEE
		
	/s/ Bradley M. Robinson
	Bradley M. Robinson, individually
































































2
EXHIBIT 13.1  Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In connection with this Amendment to Annual Report for Fiscal 2011 Ended August 31, 2011 of Golden Goliath Resources Ltd., a company organized under the British Columbia Corporations Act(the Company) on Form 20-F as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, J. Paul Sorbara, President and Director of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  /s/ J. Paul Sorbara J. Paul Sorbara, President/Director   Date: August 21, 2012
1

Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 1:48 PM

To: 'mklphoto@sprynet.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information - Mike Levin Photography & Digital Imaging

Dear Mr. Mike Levin,

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA‐2015‐

0191).  This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by

Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1.  If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and

remove closed‐set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the

requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non‐proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e‐mail to

333exemptions@faa.gov.  If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information

described above by 5/13/2015.  If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without

notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267‐9521.

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

202‐267‐9521
(Reap. Dec. 10931)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 823365, etc.

(Decided March 23, 1965)

*Sharp & Bogan*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant

*584Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et sect.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the .purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign *market value*(Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon tbe agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in said schedule A, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 64001.

protests 145188-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Acme Distributing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 711 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 711

  Celebrating the 325th anniversary of the founding of the College of 
William & Mary in Virginia by British Royal Charter and congratulating 
    President W. Taylor Reveley, III, after a decade of tremendous 
          leadership as the 27th President of William & Mary.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 22, 2018

    Mr. Taylor (for himself and Ms. Titus) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 
                               Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Celebrating the 325th anniversary of the founding of the College of 
William & Mary in Virginia by British Royal Charter and congratulating 
    President W. Taylor Reveley, III, after a decade of tremendous 
          leadership as the 27th President of William & Mary.

Whereas, on February 8, 1693, King William III and Queen Mary II of England 
        signed the charter for a ``perpetual College of Divinity, Philosophy, 
        Languages, and other good Arts and Sciences'' to be founded in the 
        Virginia Colony, making William & Mary the Nation's second-oldest 
        college;
Whereas William & Mary is considered the Alma Mater of the Nation because it 
        educated Founding Fathers of the Nation, including George Washington, 
        Thomas Jefferson, John Tyler, and James Monroe;
Whereas William & Mary is a place of many firsts for the Nation, including the 
        first United States institution with a Royal Charter, the first Greek-
        letter society (Phi Beta Kappa), the first student honor code, the first 
        college to become a university, and the first law school in America;
Whereas today, William & Mary functions as a comprehensive public research 
        university, educating future leaders in areas of the arts and sciences, 
        business, education, law, and marine science;
Whereas William & Mary has been led tremendously for the last ten years by W. 
        Taylor Reveley, III, William & Mary's 27th President; and
Whereas W. Taylor Reveley, III, has remarkably guided the Alma Mater of the 
        Nation to a position where it continues to thrive and has markedly 
        achieved success in many ways, including outstanding educational value, 
        a commitment to public service, and a diverse and inclusive community: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives celebrates the 325th 
anniversary of the College of William & Mary's Royal Charter and 
congratulates W. Taylor Reveley, III, on his retirement after a decade 
of selfless and steadfast service as the institution's 27th President.
                                 <all>
```
建立更好的信用

採取措施改善您的信用

來自:
建立更好的信用

良好的信用對於消費者的財務實力越來越重要,但良好的信用並非從天而

降。它需要自律和規劃。從今天開始做起,良好的信用將來終有回報,給

您帶來更優惠的貸款條款、更低的利率和更好的財務機會。

瞭解良好信用的價值

當您借錢的時候,良好的信用記錄可以增加貸款機構

和債權人對您的信心。如果貸款機構看到您按承諾償

還貸款,他們再次為您提供信貸的可能性會更大。有

了良好的信用,您可以為住宅、汽車或教育之類的重

要支出借錢,而且借錢的成本更低,最終為您省錢。

瞭解您的信用等級分數

當您申請信貸的時候,貸款機構首先要做的事情之一

是向信用評估機構索取一份您的信用報告。信用報告

上顯示您的信用活動歷史以及您的信用等級分數。信

用等級分數在電腦上使用公式得出,概要描述您的信

貸可靠性,並預測您償還債務的可能性有多大。目前

使用的公式有很多種,但最常見的是 Fair Isaac Corpo

ration(英文簡稱為FICO)的公式。根據他們的網站

(www.myfico.com),如果使用他們的公式計算信用等級

分數,在計算的時候將使用以下因素:

­

 付款記錄(35%)——您是否按時付款?您是否曾

申請破產或因為止贖失去房屋?您的賬單有多少次

進入收賬程序?

 所欠數額(30%)——您對債權人和貸款機構的欠

款數額是多少?

 信用記錄的時間長度(15%)——您的信用記錄有

多長時間?

 新信貸(10%)——您的信用報告是否顯示您曾多

次申請新信貸,並且有可能負債過高?您最近是否

曾在較短時間內多次獲得信用額度?

 使用的信貸類型(10%)——從信用報告來看,您

使用的信貸類型搭配是否「合理」?

建立和保持良好的信用

學會合理地運用信用可以讓您離買房夢想更近一步。

您今天在信用方面作出的決定會影響您的財務前景。

不過,要合理地運用信用,首先需要建立信用。下面

幾個建議可以幫助您開始建立信用:

 開立支票賬戶和儲蓄賬戶。開立支票賬戶和儲蓄賬

戶後,應當盡量讓賬戶餘額始終高於最低餘額,從

不出現支票退回的情況,並定期往賬戶存錢。

 謹慎使用信用卡。信用卡方便又好用,但無節制地

使用信用卡會損害您的信用。如果您信用卡的未付

清餘額很高,或者您只支付最低還款額,單是利息

可能就有成百上千美元。反過來,如果您每個月按

時全額償還信用卡,它們可以幫助您建立良好的信

用,將來便能享受諸多優勢。

 獨立建立信用。在婚姻和戀愛關係中,伴侶雙方需

要建立各自的信用,以便實現財務目標和防範不可

預見的情況,例如死亡、離婚或其他生活變故。伴

侶之間應當經常討論家庭和個人的支出,確保在這

兩方面不會產生無法償還的超支費用。

 履行付款承諾。您需要履行承諾,按既定的時間和

數額償還貸款或信用卡。如果您付款有困難,應當

立即聯絡貸款機構或債權人。

 瞭解信用報告的內容。每年至少在 

www.annualcreditreport.com 上檢查一次您的信用

報告,以確保其內容準確。如果您打算進行大額購

物,應在購買之前檢查您的信用報告,以避免意料

之外的情況,並有足夠的時間來更正錯誤。
恢復信用

您或許有一段時間在財務上遇到挫折,導致您的信用

出現問題。如果是這樣,有幾種辦法可以幫助您恢復

良好的信用:

 聯絡您在他們那裡有良好付款記錄的前債權人。他

們說不定願意延長您的信用,幫助您重新建立信

用。

 仔細審查您收到的任何信用卡邀約。信用卡不用太

多,一般兩張信用卡就夠用。

 堅決回避聲譽欠佳的信用修復公司。不要相信那些

承諾能夠快速簡單地修復信用的公司,他們可能會

騙走您的錢,讓您背上更重的債務。相反,您應當

聯絡聲譽良好的非營利信用諮詢機構。

從今天開始採取行動,改善您的信用

瞭解了信用和信用評估系統後,您便有了實現目標和

作出合理決定的正確路線。從現在開始做起,良好的

信用將為您帶來財務上的優勢,您將來可以獲得更優

惠的貸款條款、更低的利率和更好的財務機會,特別

是在您想要買房的時候。

請記住,信用等級分數並非一成不變。它隨著時間而

變化,因此您也可以隨著時間推移逐漸改善自己的分

數。當您每次按時付款、減少貸款餘額或清償債務

時,您的信用報告上都會多一個加分項。只要妥善管

理您的信用,最終您會得到較高的信用等級分數。

如需更多資訊

 房地美CreditSmart®課程為消費者提供指南,幫助他

們建立更好的信用,合理地管理資金,以及成為負

責任的房主。瀏覽 FreddieMac.com/creditsmart 下

載消費者課程資源,有五種語言可供選擇。

 如果想查找您附近的住宅與城市發展部(英文

簡稱為HUD)認定的住房諮詢機構,請瀏覽 

www.hud.gov 或致電800-569-4287。

 「買房需要知道的事情」(About Homeownership)

是房地美的一項線上指南,介紹買房流程以及如

何成功地擁有住房。請瀏覽 FreddieMac.com/ 

homeownership。

 謹防騙子!瞭解您所在地區的常見騙局,並在訂立

下一份貸款協議之前獲得建議。詳細瞭解常見的騙

局:FreddieMac.com/avoidfraud。

來源

內容根據房地美屢次獲獎的多語言財務教育課程CreditSmart改編,該課程旨在幫助消費者建立和保持更好的信用,作出合理的財務決

定,以及瞭解維持房屋產權的措施。
來自: 

出版編號823 n © 房地美版權所有,2016年12月
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

John J. Koresko, et al.,
04-cv-769
District Court Docket Number
VS.

Jeff Bleiweis, et al.,

Notice of Appeal Filed 9/12/09
Court Reporter(s)/ESR Operator(s)

Filing Fee:
Notice of Appeal__Paid_X Not Paid _ Seaman
Docket Fee __Paid __X Not Paid __USA/VI

CJA Appointment (Attach Copy of Order)

—Private Attorney
—Defender Association or Federal Public Defender
—Motion Pending

Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis status, if applicable: (Attach copy of the Order)

—Motion Granted
—Motion Denied
—Motion pending before district judge

Certificate of probable cause (state habeas corpus): (Attach copy of the Order)

Granted
Denied
—Pending

CC: Clerk USCA
Appeals Clerk
Judge Sanchez

Defendant's Address (for criminal appeals)

Prepared by : mers aye
ima qyey, Degity Clerk Signature/Date

PLEASE APPEND TO THE NOTICE OF APPEAL ANIXYFORWARD TO
THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
notapp.frm
# C_2016038EN.01007102.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/71

---

Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Volfas Engelman v OHIM — Rauch Fruchtsäfte (BRAVORO PINTA)

(Case T-700/15)

(2016/C 038/96)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Volfas Engelman AB (Kaunas, Lithuania) (represented by: P. Olson, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rauch Fruchtsäfte GmbH (Rankweil, Austria)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BRAVORO PINTA’ — Application for registration No 10 725 381

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2015 in Case R 1649/2014-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and allow registration of the CTM 1072538 and; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and allow registration of the CTM 1072538 and;

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

—

order OHIM to bear the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in identifying the relevant public; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in identifying the relevant public;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in holding that the relevant public will display an average level of attention; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in holding that the relevant public will display an average level of attention;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred by ignoring the significant visual elements of the applied for mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred by ignoring the significant visual elements of the applied for mark;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred by finding phonetic similarity between the marks; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred by finding phonetic similarity between the marks;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in basing the decision on finding that the earlier enjoys enhanced distinctiveness for energy drinks in paragraph 42 of the decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in basing the decision on finding that the earlier enjoys enhanced distinctiveness for energy drinks in paragraph 42 of the decision;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in finding a likelihood of confusion. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in finding a likelihood of confusion.

---