alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015328EN.01003201.xml

| 5.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/32

---

Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Guccio Gucci v OHIM — Guess? IP Holder (Representation of interlaced signs)

(Case T-461/15)

(2015/C 328/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Guccio Gucci SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, 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: Guess? IP Holder LP (Los Angeles, United States)

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: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark (Representation of interlaced signs) — Community trade mark No 5 538 012

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2015 in Case R 2049/2014-4

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 incurred by the applicant during these proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings;

| — | order Guess? IP Holder L.P. to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before both the OHIM Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Guess? IP Holder L.P. to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before both the OHIM Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

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

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | 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.

---
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 Annual Report of Cavalcade of Sports Media,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward Litwak, President and Acting Chief
Financial Officer , certify, pursuant to  18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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 result of operations
of the Company.

                                       /s/ Edward  Litwak
                                       Edward  Litwak
                                       President and Acting
                                       Chief Financial Officer
May 7, 2003
(Reap. Dec. 10294)

Entry No. A-839.

#### Ararat Papazian *v.*United States

(Decided July 11, 1962)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General *(Sheila W. Ziff,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

Plaintiff herein controverts the value for dutiable purposes of certain photographs covered by the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement.

The merchandise in issue was appraised on the basis of constructed value, provided for in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 91 Treas. Dec. *352295, T.D. 54165 (19 U.S.C. § 1401a(d)), at $3 each, net, packed. The statutory provisions of said section 402(d) read as follows:

> (d) Constructed Value. — For the purposes of this section, the constructed value of imported merchandise shall be the sum of—

> (1) the cost of materials (exclusive of any internal tax applicable in the country of exportation directly to such materials or their disposition, but remitted or refunded upon the exportation of the article in the production of which such materials are used) and of fabrication or other processing of any kind employed in producing such or similar merchandise, at a time preceding the date of exportation of the merchandise undergoing appraisement which would ordinarily permit the production of that particular merchandise in the ordinary course of business;

> (2) an amount for general expenses and profit equal to that usually reflected in sales of merchandise of the same general class or kind as the merchandise undergoing appraisement which are made by producers in the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for shipment to the United States; and

> (3) the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise undergoing ap-praisement in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States.

At the trial of tbis case, plaintiff, appearing in bis own bebalf, testified that be bad purchased the photographs at a lower price than found by the appraiser, but offered no evidence of the cost of materials and of fabrication or other processing employed in the production of such or similar merchandise at a time preceding the date of exportation and other essential evidence, as is required by the above statute.

In view of the failure of proof, the presumption attaching to the correctness of the appraiser’s action has not been overcome, and the court finds the proper value of the photographs in issue to be the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
•, 

Swanson, Brian (OST) pgr-osr-t.p\ \ -o \ o'l 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Kaufmann, Connie <CKaufmann@getvitalized.com> 

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 5:25 PM 

Devany, Dennis (OSn; Swanson, Brian (OST) 

Proposed air carrier from Rhinelander 

May I put my Vote in for the SkyWest access to Minneapolis. 

. ·-~-l 

I travel almost every week and live in Minocqua Wi and have been traveling for 20 years from there. }> ~~':j 

I absolutely do not want to travel thru Chicago. It would make connections terrible and the whole process of~~ 

mess, having lived that type of travel and working with others who have to connect thr~ Chicago all t~-time\.Jh~ also 

do not like that airport. ,.-

Minneapolis is also a better city to be stuck in, and it is easier to travel back and forth from there then from Chicago if 

you need to drive home. 

Connie Kaufmann, RN, MSN 

Senior Consultant- Siemens Practice 

VITALIZE CONSULTING SOLUTIONS- an SAIC Company I 715-614-7964 C I www.GETVITALIZED.COM
# C_2015363EN.01004101.xml

| 3.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/41

---

Action brought on 26 August 2015 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission

(Case T-492/15)

(2015/C 363/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 1 October 2014 in Case SA.21121 (C 29/2008) (ex NN 54/2007) — Flughafen Hahn and Ryanair; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 1 October 2014 in Case SA.21121 (C 29/2008) (ex NN 54/2007) — Flughafen Hahn and Ryanair;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies, in essence, on the following:

| — | procedural defects due to failing to hold further talks with the applicant in 2014, |
| --- | --- |

—

procedural defects due to failing to hold further talks with the applicant in 2014,

| — | an incomplete presentation of the case, although the facts of the case were known to the defendant at the time of the adoption of the contested decision, |
| --- | --- |

—

an incomplete presentation of the case, although the facts of the case were known to the defendant at the time of the adoption of the contested decision,

| — | misrepresentation of the facts of the case, since the Commission drew an incorrect picture of the case by not having regard to certain facts, |
| --- | --- |

—

misrepresentation of the facts of the case, since the Commission drew an incorrect picture of the case by not having regard to certain facts,

| — | manifest contradictions in the contested decision, |
| --- | --- |

—

manifest contradictions in the contested decision,

| — | incorrect assessment in law of the measures in favour of the airport at issue in so far as, within the meaning of Article 107(1) of TFEU, certain measures were not classified as State aid and others were classified as State aid in conformity with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

incorrect assessment in law of the measures in favour of the airport at issue in so far as, within the meaning of Article 107(1) of TFEU, certain measures were not classified as State aid and others were classified as State aid in conformity with the internal market;

| — | incorrect assessment in law of the measures in favour of the airline at issue, since they constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

incorrect assessment in law of the measures in favour of the airline at issue, since they constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of TFEU.

---
# C_2017168EN.01001601.xml

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-153/16) (1)

1

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Inappropriate storage of a large number of used tyres - Landfill not complying with the requirements fixed by Directives 2008/98/EC and 1999/31/EC - Persistent and continuous danger to the environment and human health))

(2017/C 168/20)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: A. Grum, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Declares that, by accepting in a gravel mine situated on the territory of the municipality of Lovrenc na Dravskem polju (Slovenia) a persistent and continuous danger to the environment and human health, as a result of the inappropriate storage of large quantities of disused tyres, of the mixture of the latter with other waste and the landfill thereof in infringement of the requirements of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Republic of Slovenia failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(3)(d) of that directive, as well as Articles 12 and 13 and Article 36(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Declares that, by accepting in a gravel mine situated on the territory of the municipality of Lovrenc na Dravskem polju (Slovenia) a persistent and continuous danger to the environment and human health, as a result of the inappropriate storage of large quantities of disused tyres, of the mixture of the latter with other waste and the landfill thereof in infringement of the requirements of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Republic of Slovenia failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(3)(d) of that directive, as well as Articles 12 and 13 and Article 36(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives.

| 2) | Dismisses the action as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

| 3) | Orders the Republic of Slovenia to bear its own costs and to pay two0thirds of those of the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the Republic of Slovenia to bear its own costs and to pay two0thirds of those of the European Commission.

| 4) | Orders the European Commission to bear one-third of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4)

Orders the European Commission to bear one-third of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.

1

---
Amendment No. 1--Second Amended and Restated 1999 Equity & Performance Plan



 Exhibit 10.32 
 Amendment No. 1 to the 
 OMNOVA SOLUTIONS INC. 
 Second Amended and Restated 
 1999
Equity and Performance Incentive Plan 
 This Amendment No. 1 to the OMNOVA Solutions Inc. Second Amended and Restated 1999 Equity and Performance
Incentive Plan was adopted by the Board of Directors of OMNOVA Solutions Inc. at a duly held meeting of the Board of Directors on March 19, 2008. 
 WHEREAS, the shareholders of OMNOVA Solutions Inc. approved the OMNOVA Solutions Inc. Second Amended and Restated 1999 Equity and Performance Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) on March 22, 2007; 
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors now desires to amend the plan to clarify that any awards to nonemployee directors under the Plan will be approved by a
committee of the Board composed solely of independent directors; and 
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has the authority to adopt this
amendment pursuant to Section 17 of the Plan; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of OMNOVA Solutions Inc. hereby amends the Plan,
effective immediately, in the following respects: 
 1. Section 16(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the first sentence thereof in
its entirety and replacing it with the following: 
 “This Plan shall be administered by the Board, which may from time to time delegate
all or any part of its authority under this Plan to a committee of the Board (or subcommittee thereof) consisting entirely of two or more Nonemployee Directors appointed by the Board; provided, however, that any awards made to Nonemployee Directors
under this Plan must be approved by a committee of the Board consisting entirely of two or more Nonemployee Directors each of whom is an “independent director” as defined in Section 303A.02 of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company
Manual.” 
 2. Except as explicitly set forth herein, all other terms of the Plan will continue in full force and effect.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for World Monitor Trust--Series C
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>          
<CIK>               1051824
<NAME>              World Monitor Trust--Series C
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1998

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1998

<PERIOD-END>                    Mar-31-1998

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos

<CASH>                          1,000

<SECURITIES>                    0

<RECEIVABLES>                   0

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,000

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,000

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           0

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      1,000

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,000

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    0

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
No. 56337.

protest 176374-K (New York).

#### McKesson & Robbins, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issues and facts herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as not landed were not in fact landed. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as not landed. The protest was sustained to this extent.
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-5 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-5 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 2 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-5 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 3 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-5 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 4 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-5 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 5 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-5 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 6 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-5 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 7 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-5 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 8 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-5 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 9 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-5 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 10 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-5 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 11 of 11
No. 67794.

#### The Walter Hatches, Inc., and W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N.Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 61/11931 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of candlestick holders similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Mottahedeh Creations, Ltd., et al.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 9, C.D. 2095), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# C_2018161EN.01005101.xml

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/51

---

Order of the General Court of 9 March 2018 — Aurora Group Danmark v EUIPO — Retail Distribution (PANZER)

(Case T-246/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate))

(2018/C 161/57)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Aurora Group Danmark A/S (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: L. Elmgaard Sørensen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially, D. Gaja and, subsequently, T. Frydendahl and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Retail Distribution ApS (Hinnerup, Denmark) (represented by: E.A. Skovbo, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2016 (Case R 447/2015-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Retail Distribution and Aurora Group Danmark.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Aurora Group Danmark A/S and Retail Distribution ApS shall bear their own respective costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Aurora Group Danmark A/S and Retail Distribution ApS shall bear their own respective costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

 

FELIX D. WHITTINGTON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

DONALD VAUGHN, et al.,

 Defendants.

 CIVIL ACTION

 NO. 02-4346

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 15th day of October, 2002, it is hereby ORDERED that the

attached communication shall be filed by the Clerk.

BY THE COURT:

 

_______________________________________

MARVIN KATZ, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04346-MK Document 37 Filed 10/15/2002 Page 1 of 1
Before the First Division,

March 15, 1948

No. 52222.

petition 6557-R (New York).

#### Walter Strassburger & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It appeared that as originally made the merchandise was entered under duress, an amount being added to the value of the goods equal to a rayon consumption tax imposed on Japanese merchandise. Subsequently, the entry was amended to change the value of the goods without disturbing the addition made under duress, and on a later date, a further amendment was made at which time the duress addition was cancelled. The examiner appraised the merchandise at a unit value which included the amount of the rayon consumption tax. The president and treasurer of the petitioning corporation testified that he knew there was a rayon consumption lax which he believed was not a dutiable item but which he originally entered under duress; that he discussed the question of the tax with customs officials at the time so-called “information sheets” were presented; and that he furnished the customs officials with all information he had in his possession.

From the record it was held that the entry of the merchandise at less than the final appraised value was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the *282United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.