alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPPLEMENT

USSGL 

Acct. USSGL Account Title

Anticipated

Budg/ 

Prop

Norm 

Bal

Begin

/ End

Debit/ 

Credit

Auth 

Type 

Code

Apport 

Cat

Apport 

Cat B

Avail 

Time

BEA 

Cat

Borrow 

Source

Budgetary 

Impact 

Indicator

Cohort 

Year

Cust/ 

Noncust

Exch/ 

Nonexch

Fed/ 

Nonfed

Trading 

Prtnr

Trading 

Partner 

Main

PY

Adj DEFC

Pgm 

Rpt 

Cat

Reimb 

Flag

Year 

of 

BA

Reduction 

Type BOC Fund Type

Reporting 

Type 

Code

Financing 

Account 

Code

TAS 

Status

Trans. 

Code

483100 Undelivered Orders - Obligations Transferred, Unpaid N B C E D/C A/B/E #### D/M 1001/1992-

2023

F ### #### B/P/X 1 or 3 

character 

OMB 

approved 

value

## D/R #### EC/EG/EM/EP/ER/ES/ET/TR E/F/U D/G/N U/E X/K/N

487100 Downward Adjustments of Prior-Year Unpaid Undelivered 

Orders - Obligations, Recoveries

N B D E D/C A/B/E #### D/M 1001/1992-

2023

B/P/X 1 or 3 

character 

OMB 

approved 

value

## D/R #### EC/EG/EM/EP/ER/ES/ET/TR E/F/U D/G/N U/E X/K/N

493100 Delivered Orders - Obligations Transferred, Unpaid N B C E D/C A/B/E #### D/M 1001/1992-

2023

F ### #### B/P/X 1 or 3 

character 

OMB 

approved 

value

## D/R #### EC/EG/EM/EP/ER/ES/ET/TR E/F/U D/G/N U/E X/K/N

497100 Downward Adjustments of Prior-Year Unpaid Delivered 

Orders - Obligations, Recoveries

N B D E D/C A/B/E #### D/M 1001/1992-

2023

B/P/X 1 or 3 

character 

OMB 

approved 

value

## D/R #### EC/EG/EM/EP/ER/ES/ET/TR E/F/U D/G/N U/E X/K/N

Fiscal Year 2024 Reporting

Section IV

U.S. Standard General Ledger - Attribute Table

U S S G L A C C O U N T USSGL ATTRIBUTES B U L K F I L E A T T R I B U T E S T A S A T T R I B U T E S

Bulletin No. 2022-XX DRAFT April 2022 IRC Meeting Handout
No. 60396.

protest 259040-K.

#### Daprato Statuary Co. *v.*United States,

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
# C_2006178EN.01002502.xml

| 29.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Koblenz (Germany) lodged on 31 May 2006 — Dynamic Medien Vertriebs GmbH v Avides Media AG

(Case C-244/06)

(2006/C 178/40)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Koblenz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dynamic Medien Vertriebs GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Avides Media AG

Defendant:

Question referred

Does the principle of the free movement of goods within the meaning of Article 28 EC preclude a provision of German law prohibiting the sale by mail order of image storage media (DVDs, videos) that are not labelled as having been examined in Germany as to their availability to young persons?

In particular:

Does the prohibition of mail order sales of such image storage media constitute a measure having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 28 EC?

If so:

Is such a prohibition justified under Article 30 EC, having regard to Directive 2000/31/EC, (1) even if the image storage medium has been examined as to its availability to young persons by another Member State of the EU and is labelled accordingly, or does such a check by another Member State of the EU constitute a less severe means for the purposes of that provision?

1

---

(1)  OJ L 178, p. 1.

1

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

<ARTICLE>                              5
<CIK>                                                 0001051904
<NAME>                                 Frisby Technologies, Inc.
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                       JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                         SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                 2,029,474
<SECURITIES>                                           7,422,255
<RECEIVABLES>                                          1,694,450
<ALLOWANCES>                                             (25,000)
<INVENTORY>                                              720,945
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      11,425,134
<PP&E>                                                   162,191
<DEPRECIATION>                                           (63,554)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        13,660,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  1,600,331
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                   5,121
<OTHER-SE>                                            10,627,169
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          13,660,739
<SALES>                                                1,417,931
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       1,726,648
<CGS>                                                  1,468,185
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          1,636,382
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       3,199,068
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      (243,125)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (2,865,677)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (2,865,677)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (2,865,677)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              (0.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              (0.62)
        


</TABLE>
No. 50374.

#### Protests 110066-K, etc., of Balfour, Guthrie & Co., Ltd., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EDWARD and SARAH PAPACODA, as : CIVIL ACTION

Administrators of the Estate of KAITLYN :

PAPACODA, a minor, deceased, : NO. 05-3003

:

Plaintiffs, :

v. :

THE A.I. DUPONT HOSPITAL FOR :

CHILDREN OF THE NEMOURS :

FOUNDATION and WILLIAM I. :

NORWOOD, M.D., :

:

Defendants. :

ORDER

AND NOW, on this 27th day of January 2010, upon consideration of Defendant

William I. Norwood, M.D.’s Motion to Preclude the Testimony of Joseph J. Amato, M.D. as an

expert witness (Docket No. 83), Motion to Preclude Evidence and Testimony Based upon

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of

Evidence, and for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 84), and Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Informed Consent Claim (Docket No. 82), and the responses thereto, it is

hereby ORDERED that all three Motions are DENIED. 

/s Michael M. Baylson______

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

O:\CIVIL\05-3003 Papacoda v. A.I Dupont\05-3003_Papacoda_-_Daubert_&_SJ_Mots_Order.wpd
# C_2017256EN.01002602.xml

| 7.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2017 — Jiménez Gasalla v EUIPO (B2B SOLUTIONS)

(Case T-685/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark B2B SOLUTIONS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 256/30)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Carlos Javier Jiménez Gasalla (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2016 (case R 244/2016-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign B2B SOLUTIONS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Carlos Javier Jiménez Gasalla to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Carlos Javier Jiménez Gasalla to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.

1

---
SCAD-11-0000303
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs. CHERYL PARKINSON MARTINSEN, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 10-008-8842)
ORDER OF DISBARMENT (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy and McKenna, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s petition for issuance of a reciprocal discipline notice to Respondent Cheryl Parkinson Martinsen, the memorandum, affidavit, and exhibits appended thereto, and the record, it appears the Supreme Court of California disbarred Respondent Martinsen from the practice of law in that state on November 10, 2010; this court, on April 7, 2011, issued a notice and order requiring Respondent Martinsen, in accordance with Rule 2.15(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai# i (RSCH), to show cause as to why the same or substantially equivalent discipline should not be imposed in the State of Hawai# i; service of this court’s notice and order is deemed effective April 18, 2011; and Respondent Martinsen has not appeared or shown cause as Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-11-0000303 10-AUG-2011 12:38 PMto why such discipline should not be imposed. It further appears

that Respondent Martinsen cannot be located within the State of Hawai # i and that making this disbarment order effective 30 days after its entry as provided by RSCH Rule 2.1(c) would serve no purpose. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.15(c), that Respondent Martinsen is disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Hawai # i, effective, notwithstanding RSCH Rule 2.16(c), immediately upon entry of this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to any other requirements for reinstatement imposed by the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai # i, Respondent Martinsen shall pay all costs of these proceedings as approved upon timely submission of a bill of costs and an opportunity to respond thereto, as prescribed by RSCH Rule 2.3(c).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, August 10, 2011. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

2
# C_2022073EN.01004101.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/41

---

Order of the General Court of 29 November 2021 — Kanellou v Council

(Case T-515/16) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - 2014 Reform of the Staff Regulations - Reimbursement of annual travel expenses and grant of travelling time - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 73/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Despina Kanellou (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Tavena and M. Ecker, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, in substance, annulment of the decision no longer to grant the applicant, as of 1 January 2014, reimbursement of annual travel costs so that she may maintain a connection with her place of origin.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ms Despina Kanellou shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Despina Kanellou shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | The European Commission and the European Parliament shall each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission and the European Parliament shall each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under case number F-77/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AXT, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Wilson W. Cheung, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), that, to the best of myknowledge:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: May 12, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Wilson W. Cheung    |
|--------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                     |   | Wilson W. Cheung        |
|                     |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71606-71607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28658]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9012-3]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 11/18/2013 Through 11/22/2013
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20130349, Draft EIS, FHWA, NY, New York Gateway Connections 
Improvement Project to the US Peace Bridge Plaza, Comment Period Ends: 
01/13/2014, Contact: Jonathan McDade 518-431-4127.
EIS No. 20130350, Final Supplement, NRC, TX, Generic--License Renewal 
of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 48, Regarding South Texas Project Units 1 
and 2, Review Period Ends: 12/30/2013, Contact: Tam Tran 301-415-3617.
EIS No. 20130351, Final EIS, BIA, CA, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians' 
Proposed 534-Acre Trust Acquisition and Casino Project, Review Period 
Ends: 12/30/2013, Contact: John Rydzik 916-978-6051.
EIS No. 20130352, Final Supplement, USACE, CA, Sutter Basin Pilot 
Feasibility Study, Review Period Ends: 12/30/2013, Contact: Brad 
Johnson 916-557-7812.

[[Page 71607]]

EIS No. 20130353, Draft EIS, BLM, CA, Soda Mountain Solar Project, 
Comment Period Ends: 03/03/2014, Contact: Jeff Childers 951-697-5308.
EIS No. 20130354, Final EIS, FHWA, FL, Crosstown Expressway Extension, 
Review Period Ends: 12/30/2013, Contact: Cathy Kendall 850-553-2225.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20130335, Final EIS, BLM, NV, Pan Mine Project, Review Period 
Ends: 12/19/2013, Contact: Miles Kreidler 775-289-1893 Revision to FR 
Notice Published 11/20/2013; Extending Review Period from 12/16/2013 to 
12/19/2013.
EIS No. 20130348, Draft EIS, BLM, UT, TransWest Express Transmission 
Project, Contact: Sharon Knowlton 307-775-6124; Revision to FR Notice 
Published 11/22/2013; Retracted due to erroneous filing.

    Dated: November 25, 2013.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2013-28658 Filed 11-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
No. 62449.

#### Midwest Plywood Company *v.*United States,

protest 325353-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The protest was dismissed.
Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC17-1343

____________

DENNIS SOCHOR, 

Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee.

[January 30, 2018]

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Dennis Sochor’s appeal of the circuit court’s order 

denying Sochor’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 

3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. 

Sochor’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s 

decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in 

Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 

(2017). This Court stayed Sochor’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. 

State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017). After this 
- 2 -

Court decided Hitchcock, Sochor responded to this Court’s order to show cause 

arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Sochor’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the 

State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Sochor is not entitled to relief. 

Sochor was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a 

vote of ten to two. Sochor v. State, 619 So. 2d 285, 288 (Fla. 1993). Sochor’s 

sentence of death became final in 1994. Sochor v. Florida, 510 U.S. 1025 (1994). 

Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Sochor’s sentence of death. See

Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Sochor’s 

motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Sochor, we 

caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so 

ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.

LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.

PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.

I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchcock 

v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), is now 

final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting 

opinion in Hitchcock.
- 3 -

An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Broward County, 

Paul L. Backman, Judge - Case No. 061986CF015270A88810

Neal Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Jason Kruszka, Staff Attorney, 

and Rachel L. Day, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Southern 

Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,

for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Donna M. Perry, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, Florida,

for Appellee
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 17

- 1 1125 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1 :1 6

- cr - 20471

- CMA

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus JOSE AVILA, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (September 26, 2018) Before TJOFLAT , BRANCH and BLACK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Martin A. Feigenbaum, appointed counsel for Jose Avila in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

Case: 17-11125 Date Filed: 09/26/2018 Page: 1 of 22 appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and Avila’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

Case: 17-11125 Date Filed: 09/26/2018 Page: 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARVIN OLIVER OHEY : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

CHARLES ZEMSKI, IMMIGRATION :

AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE : NO. 02-4378

 ORDER

AND NOW, this Day of July, 2002, leave is granted Petitioner to proceed

in forma pauperis, for the purpose of all proceedings in this court and also for purposes of filing

of a notice of appeal.

 

RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04378-RB Document 3 Filed 07/09/2002 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 99.1


                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 Quarterly Report of GSV, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as amended (the "Report"), I, Gilad
Gat, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, 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) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the Company's financial position and results of operations.






/s/ Gilad Gat
-----------------------
Chief Executive Officer and President
August 15, 2002
# C_2015371EN.01004101.xml

| 9.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/41

---

Action brought on 14 September 2015 — Deutsche Post v OHIM — Verbis Alfa (InPost)

(Case T-537/15)

(2015/C 371/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: M. Viefhues and T. Heitmann, lawyers)

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: Verbis Alfa sp. z o.o. (Krakow, Poland), EasyPack sp. z o.o. (Krakow, Poland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Applicant for the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘InPost’ — Registration No 11 049 558

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2015 in Case R 546/2014-1

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, insofar as it dismissed the applicant’s appeal in respect of identical services; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, insofar as it dismissed the applicant’s appeal in respect of identical services;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---