alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016078EN.01002701.xml

| 29.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/27

---

Action brought on 28 December 2015 — Labeyrie v OHIM — Delpeyrat (Representation of a sowing of golden fish on a blue background)

(Case T-766/15)

(2016/C 078/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Labeyrie (Saint-Geours-de-Maremne, France) (represented by: A. Lecomte, 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: Delpeyrat (Saint Pierre du Mont, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in colour (Representation of a sowing of golden fish on a blue background) — Community trade mark No 3 916 509

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for revocation

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 October 2015 in Case R 2693/2014-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, in that it confirmed the decision of the Invalidity Division of OHIM revoking the rights of the company LABEYRIE over its Community mark No 3 916 509 to designate fish, smoked fish and smoked salmon; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in that it confirmed the decision of the Invalidity Division of OHIM revoking the rights of the company LABEYRIE over its Community mark No 3 916 509 to designate fish, smoked fish and smoked salmon;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 1(1)(a) of that regulation, and of Rule 22 and Rule 40 of Regulation No 2868/95. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 1(1)(a) of that regulation, and of Rule 22 and Rule 40 of Regulation No 2868/95.

---
# C_2016410EN.01000901.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/9

---

Action brought on 9 September 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-489/16)

(2016/C 410/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by not adopting, by 16 June 2015 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ L 343 of 14.12.2012, p. 32) or, in any event, by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 64(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting, by 16 June 2015 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ L 343 of 14.12.2012, p. 32) or, in any event, by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 64(1) of that directive;

| — | impose on the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 8 710 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case for failure to fulfil the obligation to communicate the measures transposing Directive 2012/34/EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

impose on the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 8 710 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case for failure to fulfil the obligation to communicate the measures transposing Directive 2012/34/EU;

| — | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for the transposition of the directive expired on 16 June 2015.

It is apparent from the various replies of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in particular from the reply to the reasoned opinion, that more than one year after the expiry of the transposition period set by the directive the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg had not yet adopted the required measures.

The determination of the penalty under Article 260(3) TFEU is based on the three criteria applied under Article 260(2) TFEU, namely the seriousness of the infringement, its duration, and the need to ensure that the penalty has a deterrent effect in order to avoid further infringements.

---
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CertificationPursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

**As AdoptedPursuant to**

**Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofAXT, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Wilson W. Cheung, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), that, to the best of myknowledge:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: August 11, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Wilson W. Cheung    |
|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                        |   | Wilson W. Cheung        |
|                        |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
# C_2017277EN.01001401.xml

| 21.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/14

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Unibet International Ltd. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Központi Hivatala

(Case C-49/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Conditions for the award of a concession for the organisation of online games of chance - Practical impossibility of obtaining such a licence for private operators established in other Member States))

(2017/C 277/18)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Unibet International Ltd.

Applicant:

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Központi Hivatala

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which introduces a system of concessions and licences for the organisation of online games of chance, if it contains discriminatory rules with regard to operators established in other Member States or if it lays down rules which are not discriminatory but which are applied in a manner which is not transparent or are implemented in such a way as to prevent or hinder an application from certain tenderers established in other Member States; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which introduces a system of concessions and licences for the organisation of online games of chance, if it contains discriminatory rules with regard to operators established in other Member States or if it lays down rules which are not discriminatory but which are applied in a manner which is not transparent or are implemented in such a way as to prevent or hinder an application from certain tenderers established in other Member States;

| 2. | Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding penalties, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, imposed for the infringement of national legislation introducing a system of concessions and licences for the organisation of games of chance, if such national legislation proves to be contrary to Article 56 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding penalties, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, imposed for the infringement of national legislation introducing a system of concessions and licences for the organisation of games of chance, if such national legislation proves to be contrary to Article 56 TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.

1

---
No. 50340.

#### Protests 909732-G, etc., of Dickoff Gordon & Jacobson et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the goatskins are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Winograd Bros.*(32 C. C. P. A. 153, C. A. D. 302), which record was admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.
# MTS Cover

# Table 1

# Table 2

# Figure 1

# Figure 2

# Figure 3

# Figure 4

# Table 3

# Table 4

# Table 5

# Table 6

# Table 6A

# Table 6B

# Table 6C

# Table 6D

# Table 6E

# Table 7

# Table 8

# Table 9
# C_2017104EN.01002401.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nyíregyházi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 10 November 2016 — Dávid Vámos v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

(Case C-566/16)

(2017/C 104/35)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Nyíregyházi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dávid Vámos

Applicant:

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is national legislation pursuant to with the tax authority may, when carrying out an ex post tax inspection, preclude the possibility of opting for the personal exemption, on the basis that the taxable person only has that possibility at the time of stating when his taxable activity commences, contrary to EU law?

ex post

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARK MILLER and

AURORA MORENZO MILLER

:

:

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4281

Plaintiffs, :

:

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 GlaxoSmithKline PLC.

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-04281-AB Document 7 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at September 30, 1998 (Unaudited) and the Statement of
Operations for the Nine Months Ended September 30, 1998 (Unaudited) and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      20,027,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,078,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (265,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,291,000
<PP&E>                                     122,754,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,261,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             288,274,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      101,025,000
<BONDS>                                    233,168,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       11,067,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       116,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  59,761,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               288,274,000
<SALES>                                     26,188,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            45,102,000
<CGS>                                       14,896,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,734,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,708,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        (26,502,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (48,588,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (2,348,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (47,860,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (47,860,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (44.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (44.49)
        

</TABLE>
13 CA ADC § 2268 Page 1

13 CCR s 2268

Cal. Admin. Code tit. 13, s 2268

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF 

REGULATIONS

TITLE 13. MOTOR VEHICLES

DIVISION 3. AIR RESOURCES BOARD

CHAPTER 5. STANDARDS FOR MOTOR VEHICLE FUELS

ARTICLE 1. STANDARDS FOR GASOLINE

SUBARTICLE 2. STANDARDS FOR GASOLINE 

SOLD BEGINNING MARCH 1, 1996

This database is current through 12/26/2003, Register 

2003, No. 52.

s 2268. Liability of Persons Who Commit Violations Involving Gasoline That Has Not Yet Been Sold or Supplied 

to a Motor Vehicle.

(a) For the purposes of this subarticle, each sale of California gasoline at retail, and each dispensing of California 

gasoline into a motor vehicle fuel tank, shall also be 

deemed a sale or supply by any person who previously sold 

or supplied such gasoline in violation of any applicable 

section of this subarticle.

<General Materials (GM) - References, Annotations, or 

Tables>

Note: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, 43013, 

43013.1, 43018 and 43101, Health and Safety Code; and 

Western Oil and Gas Ass'n. v. Orange County Air Pollution Control District, 14 Cal.3d 411, 121 Cal. Rptr. 249 

(1975). Reference: Sections 39000, 39001, 39002, 39003, 

39500, 39515, 39516, 41511, 43000, 43013.1, 43016, 

43018 and 43101, Health and Safety Code; and Western 

Oil and Gas Ass'n. v. Orange County Air Pollution Control 

District, 14 Cal.3d 411, 121 Cal. Rptr. 249 (1975). 

HISTORY 

1. New section filed 11-16-92; operative 12-16-92 (Register 92, No. 47).

2. Amendment of Note filed 8-3-2000; operative 9-2-2000 (Register 2000, No.

31).

13 CA ADC s 2268

END OF DOCUMENT
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, F. Duffield Meyercord,certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of National Equipment Services, Inc.;

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this quarterly report;

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officersand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a–14 and 15d–14) for theregistrant and we have:

 

a)  designed such disclosure controls andprocedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)  evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented within thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)  disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting;

 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officersand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlsover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

a)  all significant deficiencies in the designor operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial informatin and have identified for the registrant’sauditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b)  any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 

Date:  April 8, 2004

 
| /s/  F. DUFFIELD MEYERCORD       |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|
|                             |
| F.  Duffield Meyercord           |
| Interim  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
# C_2017195EN.01002201.xml

| 19.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Haw Par v EUIPO — Cosmowell (GELENKGOLD)

(Case T-25/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark GELENKGOLD - Earlier EU figurative mark representing a tiger - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Force of res judicata - Enhanced distinctive character of the earlier mark acquired through use - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Series of marks))

(2017/C 195/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Haw Par Corp. Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: R.-D. Härer, C. Schultze, J. Ossing, C. Weber, H. Ranzinger, C. Gehweiler and C. Brockmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: Cosmowell GmbH (Sankt Johann in Tirol, Austria) (represented by: J. Sachs and C. Sachs, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2015 (Case R 1907/2015-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Haw Par and Cosmowell.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Haw Par Corp. Ltd to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Haw Par Corp. Ltd to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0374

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

vs. 

SUSAN JOANNE PAJNICH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 17, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 12 2023

10/12/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0374
In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
September 30, 2005, (the "Report") of Alloy Steel International, Inc. (the
"Company") as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof I, Alan C. Winduss, Chief Financial Officer certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.

Date: December 22, 2005                 By: /s/Alan Winduss
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Alan C. Winduss
                                            Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

                             CERTIFICATE 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 Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly  Report of Integrated
Healthcare  Holdings,  Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30,  2005,  as filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (the
"Report"),  the  undersigned,  in the capacity and on the date indicated  below,
hereby  certifies  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 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), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the period indicated.

      This  Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed,  "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


Dated: April 6, 2006                   By:  /s/ Bruce Mogel
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Bruce Mogel
                                       Chief Executive Officer