alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015381EN.01005501.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/55

---

Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Mad Catz Interactive (Representation of a black square with four white stripes)

(Case T-567/15)

(2015/C 381/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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: Mad Catz Interactive, Inc. (San Diego, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark (representation of a black square with four white stripes) — Application for registration No 11 390 853

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 July 2015 in Case R 2368/2014-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 4 May 2015 in Case R 2368/2014-5; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 4 May 2015 in Case R 2368/2014-5;

| — | annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 1 July 2015 in opposition No B2182320; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 1 July 2015 in opposition No B2182320;

| — | reject the opposed mark in respect of class 25; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposed mark in respect of class 25;

| — | order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the opponent. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the opponent.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) Regulation No 207/2009.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

 <ARTICLE>                    5
 <MULTIPLIER>                 1,000

 <S>                                         <C>
 <PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
 <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                DEC-31-2000
 <PERIOD-END>                                                     MAR-31-2000
 <CASH>                                                           717
 <SECURITIES>                                                     0
 <RECEIVABLES>                                                    13,111
 <ALLOWANCES>                                                     68
 <INVENTORY>                                                      12,740
 <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 27,017
 <PP&E>                                                           202,836
 <DEPRECIATION>                                                   24,250
 <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   212,260
 <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            12,987
 <BONDS>                                                          135,286
 <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
 <PREFERRED>                                                      0
 <COMMON>                                                         0
 <OTHER-SE>                                                       63,988
 <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     212,260
 <SALES>                                                          26,368
 <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 26,368
 <CGS>                                                            25,953
 <TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    818
 <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
 <LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               3,537
 <INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  (3,919)
 <INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
 <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              (3,919)
 <DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
 <EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
 <CHANGES>                                                        0
 <NET-INCOME>                                                     (3,918)
 <EPS-BASIC>                                                      0
 <EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: July 31, 2006
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Charles P. HuffmanCharles P. HuffmanSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer
# C_2017213EN.01001501.xml

| 3.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/15

---

Order of the Court of 27 April 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Mureş (Romania)) — Michael Tibor Bachmann v FAER IFN SA

(Case C-535/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 2(b) - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Notion of ‘consumer’ - Natural person having concluded an agreement for novation with a credit institution in order to meet repayment obligations to that institution in respect of credit obtained by a commercial company))

(2017/C 213/17)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Mureş (Romania)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Michael Tibor Bachmann

Applicant:

Defendant: FAER IFN SA

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who, following a novation agreement, has undertaken by contract to repay to a lending institution loans originally granted to a company for purposes inherent in that company’s business activity, where that natural person has no evident link with that company but acted in that way on the basis of his links, outside his trade, business or profession, with the person who controlled that company and also with the person who signed contracts ancillary to the original loan contracts (contracts of guarantee, contracts providing immovable property as security/mortgages).

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.

1

---
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 1 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 2 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 3 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 4 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 5 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 6 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 7 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 8 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 9 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 10 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 11 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 12 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 13 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 14 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 15 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 16 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 17 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 18 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 19 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 20 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 21 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 22 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 23 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 24 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 25 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 26 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 27 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 28 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 29 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 30 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 31 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 32 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 33 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 34 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 35 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 36 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 37 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 38 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 39 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 40 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 41 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 42 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 43 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 44 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 45 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 46 of 47
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 77 Filed 11/09/04 Page 47 of 47
WO pace

IPAC Operational Metrics for December 2019

Volume by Transaction Type

Dollar Amount; % of Total Dollar Amount: Number of Transactions % of Total Number of Transactions,
Fiduciary (Investment & Borrowing) 16,323,460,326,716} 99.7696 15,478 14.47%
Buy/Sell 31,375,266, 702 0.19% 90,278] 84.40%)
Benefits (RITS) 7,413,146,097, 0.05% 498] 0.47%|
Check Aftermath (TRACS) 165,070,439 0.00% 710) 0.66%
Zero Dollar te) 0.00%| 4 0.00%
Grand Total - December 2019 16,362,413,809,954| 100.00% 106,968) 100.00%|
Grand Total - November 2019 14,650,238,882,088| 00.00% 110,514) 100.00% |

November to December Change

1,712,174,927,866

Percentage Change

11.7%)

Grand Total - December 2018

15,023,031,538,770|

Dec 2018 to Dec 2019 Change

1,339,382,271,184|

Percentage Change

8.9%)

-3,546

-3.2%|

94,938)

12,030]

12.7%
## Proposed Rule: Proposed Confidentiality Determination for Data Required under the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Meeting Documentation : OMB an d I nter agencY M eeting, Aoril 2 8 , 20 I 0 Date Staff Co ntact In form a tion Na me of Summary of Discussion (e

. g ., applicab i lity, reporting Written Co mme nt s Date se nt to EPA · ( Na me , em ail , phone #) Organizat ion reqoirements , etc .) Provided? 

### Ce D ( Attac h li s t of Did they also all attendees su bmit to Docket?
n ame s and emai ls if
no ss ible) 4128 Lis a Grogan-McCulloch Agencies A co nf erence ca ll was h e ld to provide an overview of No N/A 

### Grogan- 

### alJending: the proposal

. 

### McCulloch.lisa @ef2. a.gov EPA 202-343 -9 743 OMB CEQ DOE USD A USFS

## Proposed Rule: Proposed Confidentiality Determination for Data Required under the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Meetmg DocumentatIon: 

# OMB Meet in! , May 12, 20 I 0 Dale SlaffContact Information Na me of Sum mary of D iscussion (e.g ., applicabilit y , reporting Written C omme n ts 

### Dat e se nt to EPA· (Name , e mai l, phone # ) O rganization req uir ements, etc.) Provid e d'? 

### CC D (Attach li st of Did the y also
a ll attendee s s ubmil lo Docket?
name s and emails if 

## I possib le) 

### 5

1 12 Lisa Grogan

-McCulloc h Agencies A c onference call was h el d 1 0 

### dis c u ss OMB ' s 

### No N I A Grogan- aflending: 

### co mm e nts on Ihe proposal. 

### McCullo chl i sa@epo.go v 

## EPA 202

- 343-9743 OMB
Case 2:04-cv-00938-JG Document 4 Filed 04/23/2004 Page 1 of 1

MARY DOE v. MATCH.COM, INC. et al Doc. 4

Dockets.Justia.com
# C_2015337EN.01004402.xml

| 12.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/44

---

Action brought on 25 August 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (ConnectedWork)

(Case T-491/15)

(2015/C 337/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (Represented by: U. Sander, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ConnectedWork’ — Application for registration No 13 011 267

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2015 in Case R 160/2015-5

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) read in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) read in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2016078EN.01002301.xml

| 29.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/23

---

Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Puro v OHIM (‘smartline’)

(Case T-744/15)

(2016/C 078/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Puro Italian Style SpA (Puro SpA) (Modena, Italy) (represented by: F. Terrano, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘smartline’ — Application for registration No 12 574 802

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2015 in Case R 2258/2014-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Misapplication of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Misapplication of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
No. 65402.

#### C. M. Offray & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 247595-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nylon pile ribbons similar in use to pile ribbons, wholly or in chief value of silk, and following the principles set forth in *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), the claims of the plaintiff were sustained as follows: (1) The items marked “A” at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1206, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802); (2) the items marked “B” at 23% percent under said paragraph 1206, as modified by the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 54108); and (3) the items marked “C” at 22% percent under said paragraph 1206, as modified, *supra.*
# June 2023
(Reap. Dec. 10322)

Entry No. *13132.*

#### Unitron Import Corp. *v.*United States

(Decided August 29, 1962)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-enumerated appeal for reappraisement for decision upon stipulation, reading as follows:

> 1. That the merchandise and the issues involved in the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement are the same in all material respects as those involved in *United States*v. *Gitkin Co.,*A.R.D. 132, and that the record in the cited case may be incorporated in the record herein.

> 2. That at the time of exportation of the merchandise herein the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered for exportation to the United States to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoiced ex-factory unit values, net, packed.

> 3. That the involved merchandise was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 27, 1958, and is not identified in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54521).

On the agreed facts and following the decision in the cited case, I find export value, as defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for the determination of the values of the wood articles involved and that such values were the invoiced ex-factory unit values, net, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCYREGIONIll1650ArchStreetPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029Mr.DavidK.Paylor,DirectorVirginia DepartmentofEnvironmentalQuality629EastMain StreetRichmond, Virginia2321 9DearMr.Paylor:On March12,2008,theU.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency(EPA)revisedthenational ambientair quality standards(NAAQS)for ozonetoprovideincreasedprotection ofpublic healthandwelfarefromozonepollution.Thenewprimary ozonestandardwasloweredfrom0.08 partspermillion(ppm)to0.075ppmbasedonnumerous epidemiologicalstudiesconductedduring-the pastdecadein which manyofthehealtheffectsassociated withozoneexposure havebeen demonstratedatand belowthelevelof the0.08 ppmstandard, whichwaspromulgatedin1997. These includearange of serious respiratoryeffects and increasedpremature mortality.EPAalsostrengthened the secondary 8-hour ozone standard, making itidentical totherevised primarystandard,to protect againstwelfare effects such as impactsonvegetation and forested ecosystems.Withinoneyearofpromulgationofa neworrevised NAAQS,section107(d)(l)(A)ofthe Clean AirActrequires theGovernorofeachstatetosubmit toEPAalistof allareas in thestate,recommendingdesignations for each as"attainment," "nonattainment,"or"unclassifiable"withrespecttotheneworrevisedstandard.Therefore,EPAasksthatyouprovideyourdesignationrecommendations, including appropriateareaboundaries,toEPAbyMarch12,2009with respect totherevisedozoneNAAQS.Establishingarea designationsisakey step in theprocessof providing the health protectionsthattheCleanAir Actmandates. Areasthat aredesignatedasnotattaining the air quality standardswillberequired to adopt plans toreduceambientconcentrations of ozone.Theenclosed memorandumprovidesguidance tostateandlocal air pollutioncontrolagencies andTribes on theprocessfor designatingareas underthe'2008revisedozonestandard.EPAplansto announceourintendeddesignationsasearly as possibleafterreceiptofyourrecommendations, butnolater than 120 days priortopromulgating finaldesignations.Followingtheannouncementofintendeddesignations, statesandTribeswill havetheopportunityto commentonanymodificationsEPAproposes totheirrecommendations.Inaccordancewithsection107(d)(l)(B)of the CleanAirAct, weintend toissuefinaldesignationsbyMarch12,2010 (although thatdeadline maybeextended up tooneadditional yearifEPAdeterminesthat insufficientinformationisavailabletoestablish designationsbythatdate).Ourdesignationswillbebasedon the mostrecentthreeyearsofcertified, qualityassuredmonitoringdata available. Ozonenonattainmentareaswillbeclassifiedat the time ofdesignation.TheapproachEPAwillusetoclassify nonattainmentareas underthe2008 revisedozoneNAAQSwillbeestablished through aseparatenotice-and-comment rulemaking.EPAlooksforward to working withyou andyourstafftodevelop areadesignationsunderthe2008revised ozone standardsina timely manner.As always, pleasefeelfreetocontactmeorMs.Judith Katz,Region111'sAirProtection DivisionDirector,at215-8 14-2654ifadditionalinformation isneeded.Sincerely,DonaldS. WelshRegional~dministratorEnclosurecc:Mr.MichaelG.Dowd,AirQuality DivisionDirectorVirginiaDepartment ofEnvironmental Quality
No. 60426.

protest 270286-K (New York).

#### J. J. Boll *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

An examination of the official record failing to disclose any reason for disturbing the presumptively correct classification of the merchandise made by the collector, the protest was overruled.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**SECTION
      1350 CERTIFICATION CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of GMX Resources Inc. (the
“Company”), hereby certifies that the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for
      the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.




Date:
                March 15, 2007
            /s/
                Ken L. Kenworthy, Jr.Ken L. Kenworthy, Jr.Chief
                Executive Officer
<Page>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to Registration
Statement No. 333-102625 of Hartford Life Insurance Company Separate Account
Three on Form N-4, of our report dated February 19, 2003 of Hartford Life
Insurance Company relating to the financial statements as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000, and of our report dated February 21,
2003 of Hartford Life Insurance Company Separate Account Three relating to
the financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002,
appearing in the Statement of Additional Information, which is a part of such
Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under the headings
"Experts" in such Statement of Additional Information.


Deloitte & Touche LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
October 6, 2003
No. 57148.

protests 187372-K, etc. (New York).

#### H. W. St. John & Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of. the papers in the case the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protests were therefore overruled.