alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015245EN.01003301.xml

| 27.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/33

---

Action brought on 21 May 2015 — Speciality Drinks v OHIM — William Grant (CLAN)

(Case T-250/15)

(2015/C 245/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Speciality Drinks Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Pritchard, Barrister)

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: William Grant & Sons Ltd (Dufftown, United Kingdom)

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 word mark ‘CLAN’ — Application for registration No 10 025 815

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2015 in Case R 220/2014-1

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and dismiss the opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and dismiss the opposition;

| — | order that a costs award be made in the favour of the applicant and/or that the costs order of the First Board of Appeal be reversed. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that a costs award be made in the favour of the applicant and/or that the costs order of the First Board of Appeal be reversed.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in its characterisation of the level of attention of the ‘relevant consumer’ within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in its characterisation of the level of attention of the ‘relevant consumer’ within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | The Board of Appeal failed to decide whether CLAN, when used in conjunction with MACGREGOR, was a fancy (i.e. meaningless) word to the relevant consumer or, in the alternative, was a word with a meaning they understood; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal failed to decide whether CLAN, when used in conjunction with MACGREGOR, was a fancy (i.e. meaningless) word to the relevant consumer or, in the alternative, was a word with a meaning they understood;

| — | The Board of Appeal did not assess the similarity of marks on the correct legal and/or factual basis; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal did not assess the similarity of marks on the correct legal and/or factual basis;

| — | The Board of Appeal did not assess the likelihood of confusion on the correct legal and/or factual basis. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal did not assess the likelihood of confusion on the correct legal and/or factual basis.

---
**Exhibit 32****CERTIFICATION**     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted),Michael Grey, the Chief Executive Officer of SGX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”), and ToddMyers, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of hisknowledge:1. The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December31, 2007, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the“Annual Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and 2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition of the Company at the endof the period covered by the Annual Report and results of operationsof the Company for the period covered by the Annual Report.Dated: March 26, 2008     /s/ Michael Grey Michael Grey /s/ Todd Myers Todd Myers, C.P.A.     Chief Executive Officer   Chief Financial Officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of OpenTable, Inc.

Subsidiary

JurisdictionOpenTable Europe Ltd.

United KingdomOpenTable EURL

FranceOpenTable GmbH

GermanyOpenTable Kabushiki Kaisha

JapanOpenTable Spain S.L.

SpainOpenTable Mexico S de la RL

MexicoOpenTable Canada Inc.

CanadaTable Maestro, Inc.

United StatesOpenTable UK Holdings Ltd.

United KingdomToptable.co.uk Ltd.

United KingdomToptable Holdings Ltd.

United KingdomToptable Services Ltd.

United KingdomCity Eating Ltd.

United Kingdom


---



QuickLinks
No. 50880.

#### Petition 6522-R of Klingerit, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The merchandise was invoiced in United States dollars but entered at a higher foreign market value in Austrian schillings. Appraisal was made in German reichsmarks at the ratio of 1 reichsmark to 1.50 Austrian schillings. The importer appealed to reappraisement on the ground that the appraiser was attempting to convert currency, which was a function of the collector, but the court held that since Austria was then occupied by Germany, the appraiser was properly finding value in the currency of the country of exportation. *(Klingerit, Inc.*v. *United States,*11 Cust. Ct. 446, Reap. Dec. 5944, affirmed in Reap. Dec. 6159.) After consideration of the evidence it was held that the petitioner acted without intention to misrepresent the facts or to defraud the revenue of the United States or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the goods. The petition was therefore granted.
Before the Second Division,

March 24, 1955

No. 58863.

protests 179038-K, etc. (Detroit).

#### Asam Manufacturing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of speedometers and parts thereof similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of *Industrial Operations, Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 82, C. D. 1500), except that the speedometers *315and parts thereof in the cited case were designed and intended for use as parts of motorcycles whereas those at bar are intended for use as parts of automobiles, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
June 17, 1964

No. 68664.

Appeal 5128.

#### Bird Machine Company *v.*United States.

C.D. 2362 reversed January 23, 1964.

C.A.D. 835.
No. 60741.

#### American Thermo-Ware Company *v.*United States,

protest 261124-K (New York).

Donlon, Judge:

Certain binoculars, in leather cases, imported from Japan, were assessed with 10 percent additional duty, because the collector found they were not marked as to country of origin, as required by section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The importation consisted of 100 binoculars, such as those here involved, and certain other binoculars, as to which the marking issue is not raised. Of the 100 binoculars, 40 were marked after the collector raised the issue, and as to those binoculars no additional duty was assessed. However, 60 binoculars were not surrendered for marking, and the additional duty relates to them. It is against this additional duty that plaintiff has protested.

The record consists solely of the official papers. No testimony was offered. In the official papers, there is nothing which proves either that these 60 binoculars or their cases were marked, or, if marked, how they were marked. To be sure, the notice to plaintiff (customs Form 4647), copy of which is with the official papers and, therefore, of record, has the print word “container” stricken out where the form refers to “the article (s) (or container (s))” or, as the case may be, to “the article (container) * * Plaintiff relies on this as *proof*that the containers were adequately marked and builds its argument on that proof.

This is not so clear as plaintiff assumes. The liquidation record shows that these binoculars were valued at $11.45 each, which assigns $687 as the value of the 60 binoculars here involved. Yet, the additional duty of 10 percent was taken on a value of $700.30, which must indicate that something other than the value of the 60 binoculars was included in the base on which additional duty of 10 percent was taken. While the figures are difficult to reconcile, that is plaintiff’s responsibility.

However, even if this were cleared up, plaintiff has failed to prove ultimate sale of the binoculars in properly marked containers.

It would not be enough for plaintiff to prove that the containers were legally marked, even if it had proved this. The Customs Administrative Act of 1938, effective when this merchandise was entered, defines the conditions under which legal marking of containers will suffice to lift the marking requirement from the contained merchandise. Plaintiff argues that these conditions obtain, but proofs were not adduced on which the argument could be made. *498Plaintiff has failed to prove its claim. The protest is overruled. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7218 LITTLE TOM CHILDRESS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusJ. ERVINE; CALVIN GREGORY; D. MASTERSON; OFFICER FERGUSON; OFFICER ASSENAT, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 96-7219 LITTLE TOM CHILDRESS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. ERVINE; RAYMON MORROW, a/k/a Morrison; ROANOKE CITY JAIL, Sheriff's Department, Defendants - Appellees.Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-575-R, CA-95-184-R) Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 19, 199623 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Little Tom Childress, Appellant Pro Se. Robert F. Rider, RIDER, THOMAS, CLEAVELAND, FERRIS & EAKIN, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's entry of judgment by jury denying relief on his consolidated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaints. We have considered the issues Appellant raised in hisinformal brief, reviewed the record and the district court's judgment, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief under § 1983. Because there are no complex or substantial issues presented in these appeals, we deny Appellant's motions for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : CRIMINAL ACTION

:

Respondent, : NO. 03-0642

:

v. :

:

ANTHONY JACKSON : CIVIL ACTION

:

Petitioner. : NO. 09-5255

ORDER

AND NOW, on this 27th day of April, 2010, for the reasons stated in the foregoing

Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner Anthony Jackson’s Motion to Vacate, Set

Aside, or Correct Sentence (Docket No. 144) is DENIED without a hearing. The Court finds no

ground upon which to issue a certificate of appeal. 

The Clerk is directed to close this case.

BY THE COURT:

 

 /s/ Michael M. Baylson_____

Michael M. Baylson, U.S.D.J

O:\Criminal Cases\03-642 Jackson, US v\Jackson Habeas Order.wpd
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 12, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134019 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

FRANCA FERRARI,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134019 

 COA: 273557 

WCAC: 05-000187 

ARAMARK SERVICES MANAGEMENT OF 

MICHIGAN, INC., and BANKER’S STANDARD 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the order of the Court of Appeals and 

REINSTATE the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission 

(WCAC) affirming the magistrate’s award of benefits for a closed period. The Court of 

Appeals erred in adopting the opinion of the WCAC dissenting commissioner where 

there was support in the record for the decision of the WCAC. Mudel v Great Atlantic & 

Pacific Tea Co, 462 Mich 691 (2000). We REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals 

to consider the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal on the issue of whether the 

defendants may recoup benefits they voluntarily paid. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

KELLY, J., would deny leave to appeal. 

t0905 

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. 

September 12, 2007 

 Clerk
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 778 

Honoring Erin Hamlin of Remsen, New York, for proudly representing the 

United States in four consecutive Winter Olympic Games. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2018 

Ms. TENNEY (for herself, Ms. STEFANIK, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. FASO, 

and Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring Erin Hamlin of Remsen, New York, for proudly 

representing the United States in four consecutive Winter Olympic Games. 

Whereas, on Tuesday, February 12, 2018, Erin Hamlin competed in her fourth and final Winter Olympic Games in 

Pyeongchang, South Korea, where she was also selected 

as the United States flag bearer in the Opening Ceremony on February 9, 2018; 

Whereas Erin Hamlin was the first female American luger to 

medal at any Winter Olympics, winning bronze at the 

2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, and was the first 

American of either gender to medal in singles competition; and 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 778 IH 

Whereas Erin Hamlin was the first Olympic athlete to represent the village of Remsen, New York: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) congratulates and honors Erin Hamlin and 

3 her hometown of Remsen, New York, on her per4 formance at the 2018 Winter Olympic Games in 

5 Pyeongchang, South Korea; 

6 (2) recognizes and commends the hard work, 

7 dedication, determination, and commitment to excel8 lence of Erin Hamlin for ably representing the 

9 United States at four consecutive Olympic Winter 

10 Games; and 

11 (3) recognizes and commends the people of 

12 Remsen, New York, and the surrounding area for 

13 their outstanding loyalty and support of Erin Ham14 lin throughout her Olympic career. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2016343EN.01001801.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/18

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — M. H. v M. H.

(Case C-173/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - No reasonable doubt - Jurisdiction in matrimonial matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 16(1)(a) - Determination of the time when a court is seised - Concept of ‘the time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the court’))

(2016/C 343/28)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M. H.

Applicant:

Defendant: M. H.

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Article 16(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted to the effect that the ‘time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the court’, within the meaning of that provision, is the time when that document is lodged with the court concerned, even if under national law lodging that document does not of itself immediately initiate proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

1

---
[exhibit109002.gif] www.rtgventures.com  EXHIBIT 10.9 AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE LLC INTERESTS  December 12, 2012 By Email: mougin@msn.com, cpereira@bandentertain.com Jeffrey Wattenberg Cord Pereira BrandEntertain  Dear Jeffrey and Cord: This letter is to confirm that we have agreed that the Agreement to Purchase LLC Interests dated as of June 11, 2012 whereby RTG Ventures, Inc. (RTG) purchased the equity of BrandEntertain LLC (Brand) will be reconfigured as a cooperative venture whereby RTG and Brand will work together to exploit existing and future Brand projects.  By signing this letter, you agree to proceed to document the reconfiguration in a mutually satisfactory manner and that such reconfiguration will be effective as of June 11, 2012. Very Truly Yours, RTG Ventures, Inc.  By: /s/ Linda Perry Linda Perry Executive Director  Agreed and Accepted this 12th day of December 12, 2012 BrandEntertain


|                            |                      
|--------------------------- | ---------------------
|By: /s/ Jeffrey Wattenberg  | By: /s/ Cord Pereira 
|Jeffrey Wattenberg, Partner | Cord Pereira, Partner
# C_2015320EN.01004701.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/47

---

Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Laboratorios Ern v OHIM — Werner (Dynamic Life)

(Case T-454/15)

(2015/C 320/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Pérez Serres, 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: Matthias Werner (Neufahrn, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in white, red, orange, yellow, green and blue purple containing the word elements ‘Dynamic Life’ — Application for registration No 11 303 468

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2015 in Case R 441/2014-4

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | revoke the contested decision and reject the CTM No 011303468 DYNAMIC LIFE & design in classes 5 and 32; |
| --- | --- |

—

revoke the contested decision and reject the CTM No 011303468 DYNAMIC LIFE & design in classes 5 and 32;

| — | order OHIM and Mr. Matthias Werner, in case he decides to intervene, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and Mr. Matthias Werner, in case he decides to intervene, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

# OCT 8 2cIo

OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Ms. Teresa Marks Director Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 5301 Northshore Drive North Little Rock, Arkansas 72118 Dear Ms. Marks: Thank you for your letter ofAugust 20, 2010, regarding the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rule to identify non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid waste when burned in combustion units. In your letter, you express concern that the rule, as proposed, would have an adverse impact on existing markets within Arkansas that promote ~ the recycling and reuse ofwaste tires and could in turn lead to the creation of illegal waste tire dumps.As you know, scrap tires are one of many materials that the agency evaluated in preparing the proposed rule. In developing the final rule, EPAwill continue to evaluate scrap tires and other non-hazardous secondary materials based on the entirety of the comments received and available information. I appreciate your concerns and will ensure that your letter is entered into the rulemaking docket (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329) for consideration as the final rule is developed. Again, thank you for your letter. I have asked George Faison, in our Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, to followup with your staffto answer any additional questions. In the meantime, if your staff has further concerns, they can contact George Faison at (703) 305- 7652 or at faison.george@epa.gov. Sincerely,

Internet Address (URL) 0 http://www .epa .gov Recycled/Recyclable 0 Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper