alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017022EN.01003201.xml

| 23.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2016 — K&K Group v EUIPO — Pret A Manger (Europe) (Pret A Diner)

(Case T-2/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark Pret A Diner - Earlier EU figurative mark PRET A MANGER - Earlier national word mark PRET - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctiveness or the repute of the earlier marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 022/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: K&K Group AG (Cham, Switzerland) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Pret A Manger (Europe) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2015 (Case R 2825/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Pret A Manger (Europe) and K&K Group.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders K&K Group AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders K&K Group AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.

1

---
EXHIBIT 4  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS   We hereby consent to the use of our name in the Annual Report on Form
40-F (the Annual Report) of Enerplus Resources Fund (the Registrant).  We hereby further consent to the inclusion
in the Annual Report of the Registrants Renewal Annual Information Form dated
April 22, 2004 for the year ended December 31, 2003, which document
makes reference to our firm and our report entitled "Evaluation of the
P&NG Reserves of Enerplus Resources Fund (As of January 1, 2004)",
dated March 19, 2004, evaluating the Registrants oil, natural gas and
natural gas liquids interests effective January 1, 2004.   Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  SPROULE ASSOCIATES LIMITEDApril 22, 2004/s/
  Ken H. CrowtherKen H. Crowther, P. Eng.President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      48,412,289
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         818,016
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                187,724,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       2,676,860
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         2,582,939
<LOANS>                                    764,902,159
<ALLOWANCE>                                  7,577,554
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,074,550,549
<DEPOSITS>                                 867,034,013
<SHORT-TERM>                               100,800,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          6,441,666
<LONG-TERM>                                 38,442,135
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    59,722,360
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,110,375
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>           1,074,550,549
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             35,738,375
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            5,915,686
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                65,213
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            41,719,274
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          14,009,538
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,171,911
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       22,537,825
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                1,550,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             19,817,475
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,652,898
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   5,652,898
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,818,648
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.95
<LOANS-NON>                                  3,812,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                    13,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                             4,958,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             6,350,100
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  398,154
<RECOVERIES>                                    75,608
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            7,577,554
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         7,577,554
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

ABBOTT : 02-3883

MCDANIEL, et al. : 02-3906

MENDOZA : 02-3955

MEYER : 02-3987

KUEHL, et al. : 02-4134

QUITASOL, et al. : 02-4209

MONTANEZ, et al. : 02-4254

DIEBERT, et al. : 02-4323

:

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota..

It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

Case 2:02-cv-04254-CRW Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 1 of 2
FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

Charles R. Weiner, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04254-CRW Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 2 of 2
No. 50346.

#### Protest 102036-K of Veneers, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the walnut flitches are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *Dixie Veneer Co., Inc.*(32 C. C. P. A. 75, C. A. D. 288), which record was admitted in evidence *234herein. In accordance therewith it was held that the merchandise is entitled to entry free of duty under paragraph 1803, Tariff Act of 1930, and not subject to the internal revenue tax assessed.
Payment Collection RIA SIA Zero Dollar Total

January 2017 24,959 73,607 3,533 187 - 102,286

February 2017 25,820 76,077 3,454 102 - 105,453

March 2017 30,510 84,884 3,192 188 - 118,774

Totals 81,289 234,568 10,179 477 - 326,513

 -

 50,000

 100,000

 150,000

 200,000

 250,000

 300,000

 350,000

# of transactions

Transaction Type

IPAC Transaction Count

January 2017

February 2017

March 2017

Totals
APPENDIX 10. REPEALED

Historical Note

Adopted effective May 14, 1979 (Supp. 79-1). Amended effective July 9, 1980 (Supp. 80-4). 

Amended effective June 19, 1981 (Supp. 81-3). Repealed by final rulemaking at 15 

A.A.R. 281, effective March 7, 2009 (Supp. 09-1).
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of RTG Ventures, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the period ending August 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Linda Perry, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(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 results of operations of the Company.




/s/
      Linda PerryLinda
      Perry
                    Chief
      Executive Officer
                    January
      13, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED MARCH 31, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,675,824
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,949,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                   242,000
<INVENTORY>                                  4,850,407
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,647,559
<PP&E>                                       8,706,804
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,014,397)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,980,060
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,712,145
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    18,980,060
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                48,980,060
<SALES>                                     57,051,797
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            57,051,797
<CGS>                                       34,762,816
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               56,220,703
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             486,937
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   137,663
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            206,494
<DISCONTINUED>                               (434,370)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (277,876)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2017195EN.01000601.xml

| 19.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/6

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — Pénzügyi Ismeretterjesztő és Érdek-képviseleti Egyesület (PITEE) v European Commission

(Case C-464/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Request for access to Commission documents - Refusal - Action for annulment - Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Representation before the EU Courts - Lawyer who is not a third party in relation to the appellant - Action manifestly inadmissible - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))

(2017/C 195/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Pénzügyi Ismeretterjesztő és Érdek-képviseleti Egyesület (PITEE) (represented by: D. Lazar, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Pénzügyi Ismeretterjesztő és Érdek-képviseleti Egyesület (PITEE) shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Pénzügyi Ismeretterjesztő és Érdek-képviseleti Egyesület (PITEE) shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.

1

---
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00428

- CR

TREY WAYNE FRICKS

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 24th District Court of Refugio County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 08

- 6221

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered t his cause on
appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered . The

Court order s the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and RE NDER ED.

We further order this decision certified below for observanc e. May 26, 2022
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DAVID DRENTLAW :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4142

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04142-PBT Document 9 Filed 09/20/2002 Page 1 of 1
S PACS IPAC Operational Metrics for August 2020

‘Volume by Transaction Type

Dollar Amount] % of Total Dollar Amount] Number of Transactions] _% of Total Number of Transactions
Fiduciary (investment & Borrowing) 16,938, 320,574,286| 99.76% 16,724 13.49%
[Buy/Sell 32,535,014,392 0.19% 105,879 85.43%
[Benefits (RITS) 7,939,462,493 0.05% 506 O41%5
[Check Aftermath (TRACS) 140,315,060| 0.00% 823 0.66%
Zero Dollar oO 0.00% 0 0.00%]
[Grand Total - August 2020 16,978,935,366,231, 100.00%| 123,932| 100.00%|
[Grand Total - July 2020 18,278,426,803,624 100.00%| 100.0%

july to August Change =1,299,491,437,393|
Percentage Change EAC

Grand Total - August 2019 16,178,106,031,921|
|Aug 2019 to Aug 2020 Change 800,829,334,310}
5.0%

*The file that failed to process correctly related to a Connect: Direct submission that became stuck in the Connect: Direct inbox for the agency. The file was
later submitted successfully.
# C_2015279EN.01003801.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/38

---

Action brought on 29 May 2015 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission

(Case T-274/15)

(2015/C 279/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Alcogroup (Brussels, Belgium); and Alcodis (Brussels) (represented by: P. de Bandt, J. Dewispelaere and J. Probst, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decisions;

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging that, by adopting and implementing the contested decisions, the Commission infringed the applicants’ rights of defence and their right to the inviolability of private premises and that it breached the principles of sound administration and proportionality.

---
# C_2016175EN.01001001.xml

| 17.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 February 2016 — Lg Costruzioni Srl v Area — Azienda Regionale per l’Edilizia Abitativa — Distretto di Carbonia, Area — Azienda Regionale per l’Edilizia Abitativa

(Case C-110/16)

(2016/C 175/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Lg Costruzioni Srl

Appellant:

Respondent: Area — Azienda Regionale per l’Edilizia Abitativa — Distretto di Carbonia, Area — Azienda Regionale per l’Edilizia Abitativa

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

Is a provision such as that in Article 53(3) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 16 April 2006, which allows participation by an undertaking with a ‘named’ design engineer who, since he is not himself a tenderer, may not, according to national case-law, rely on the capacity of others, compatible with Article 48 of Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004? (1)

1

---

(1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

1

---
(Reap. Dec. 10289)

Entry No. 5221, etc.

#### George J. Palmer, d/b/a Twi-Ro-Pa Mills Agency, et al. *v.*United States

(Decided June 27, 1962)

*James J. Morrison*for the plaintiffs.

*Joseph D. Ctuilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General *(Alfred*A. *Taylor, Jr.,*and *Samuel D. Speetor,*trial attorneys), for the defendant.

Donlon, Judge:

At New Orleans, La., on October 24,1961, these cases were consolidated for trial. Plaintiffs offered the testimony of one witness, and trial was continued to the next New Orleans term to give plaintiffs opportunity to adduce additional evidence.

On May 1, 1962, on call of these cases on the New Orleans trial calendar, the cases were put over to May 2, on plaintiffs’ assurance that they expected to receive evidentiary affidavits from Medirá, Mexico. On May 2, 1962, plaintiffs’ request for delay of still 1 more day, to permit receipt and filing of the expected affidavits, was granted.

On May 3, 1962, plaintiffs’ counsel in open court abandoned three of the previously consolidated cases, reappraisement Nos. 270787-A, 297417-A, and R59/14763.

On plaintiffs’ motion, without objection, reappraisement No. 62/46 was ordered consolidated for trial with the cases consolidated under lead case No. 280309-A.

*348Trial then proceeded, testimony was adduced, and leave was granted to plaintiffs to move affidavits into evidence within 10 days, and the cases were ordered submitted on such record.

Plaintiffs have now filed notice, dated June 5, 1962, abandoning, because of inability to produce “the necessary and expected proofs and affidavits * * *,” those cases not previously abandoned.

All of the cases having been abandoned either in open court or by writing filed with the clerk, they are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 64057.

protests 57168-K, etc. (New York).

#### American Beverage Corp. 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.
**Docket No. FAA -**  **2011 -**  **0917**
EXHIBIT 8.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

The following table lists our subsidiaries and their jurisdiction of
incorporation as of June 30, 2008:



|                                  |  |                        
|--------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Subsidiary                        |  | Country ofIncorporation
|Shopping Alto Palermo S.A.        |  | Argentina              
|Fibesa S.A.                       |  | Argentina              
|Tarshop S.A.                      |  | Argentina              
|Emprendimiento Recoleta S.A.      |  | Argentina              
|Inversora del Puerto S.A.(2)      |  | Argentina              
|Shopping Neuquén S.A.             |  | Argentina              
|Mendoza Plaza Shopping S.A.(3)    |  | Argentina              
|E-Commerce Latina S.A.(4)         |  | Argentina              
|Comercializadora Los Altos S.A(5) |  | Argentina              
|Empalme S.A.I.C.F.A. Y G.(3)      |  | Argentina              
|Panamerican Mall S.A.             |  | Argentina
Document

Exhibit 10.28



The following executive officers have a percentage benefit multiplier under the Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the “Plan” of 2.4% or 2.0%, as indicated below, in lieu of the 1.6% of final average monthly remuneration benefit multiplier described in the Plan:
						
	2.4%	2.0%
	Blake W. Krueger
	Michael Jeppesen

		Michael D. Stornant

		James D. Zwiers
Exhibit 99.2



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. Sec.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In  connection with the Annual Report of The Bluebook International Holding
Company (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I,  Mark  A.  Josipovich,  President,  Chief  Executive Officer, and
Principal  Accounting  Officer  of  the  Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec.1350,  as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the
     Company.



                                    /s/ Mark A. Josipovich
                                    ----------------------
                                    Mark A. Josipovich, Chief Executive Officer,
                                    President, and Principal Accounting Officer
                                    April 15, 2003


                                       19
<PAGE>
Before the Third Division,

October 21, 1960

No. 64758.

#### Finnish Food Imports, Inc., and C. H. Timm & Son, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/27808, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bread similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nordic Baking*& *Importing Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 78, C.A.D. 733), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# March 2015

# April 2015

# May 2015

# June 2015

# July 2015

# August 2015

# September 2015

# October 2015

# November 2015

# December 2015

# January 2016

# February 2016

# March 2016

# April 2016

# May 2016

# June 2016