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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3929 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3929

 To prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from taking certain proposed 
  actions relating to a land management plan direction for old-growth 
          forest conditions across the National Forest System.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 12, 2024

   Mr. Barrasso (for himself, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Daines, and Mr. Risch) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
           Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from taking certain proposed 
  actions relating to a land management plan direction for old-growth 
          forest conditions across the National Forest System.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON TAKING PROPOSED ACTIONS.

    The Secretary of Agriculture shall not take the proposed actions 
described in the notice of the Forest Service entitled ``Land 
Management Plan Direction for Old-Growth Forest Conditions Across the 
National Forest System'' (88 Fed. Reg. 88042 (December 20, 2023)).
                                 <all>
```
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 1 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 2 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 3 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 4 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 5 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 6 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 7 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 8 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 9 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 10 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 11 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 12 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 13 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 14 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 15 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 16 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 17 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 18 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 19 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 20 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 21 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 22 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 23 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 24 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 25 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 26 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 27 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 28 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 29 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 30 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 31 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 32 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 33 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 34 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 35 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 36 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 37 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 38 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 39 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 40 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 41 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 42 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 43 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 44 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 45 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20132-HB Document 4-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 46 of 46
1 “The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to

correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly

discovered evidence.” Max’s Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d

669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). “Under Rule 59(e), a party [seeking

reconsideration] must rely on one of three grounds: (1) the

availability of new evidence not previously available, (2) an

intervening change in controlling law, or (3) the need to correct

a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice.” Moy v.

M&T Mortgage Corp., No. CIV.A. 01-5693, 2002 WL 1001146, * 1

(E.D. Pa. May 15, 2002)(citing Smith v. City of Chester, 155

F.R.D. 95, 96-97 (E.D. Pa. 1994)). 

On December 4, 2002, this Court entered an Order granting

Respondents’ Motion to Lift Stay of Removal. Petitioner now

moves for reconsideration of this Order. However, Petitioner has

not asserted any of the required grounds justifying

reconsideration; in fact, Plaintiff has not even addressed the

legal standard governing motions for reconsideration. Since

Petitioner has not set forth any reason why this Court should

reconsider its prior decision to lift the stay of removal,

Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIGUEL ANGEL DIAZ, : CIVIL ACTION

:

Petitioner, : 2:02-CV-04454

:

v. : 

:

JOHN ASHCROFT, EDWARD MCELROY, :

KENNETH ELWOOD, and the :

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION :

SERVICE, :

:

Respondents. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of February, 2003, upon

consideration of the Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration

(Document No. 8), it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is

DENIED.1

Case 2:02-cv-04454-JCJ Document 10 Filed 02/12/2003 Page 1 of 2
2

BY THE COURT:

 

J. CURTIS JOYNER, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04454-JCJ Document 10 Filed 02/12/2003 Page 2 of 2
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3890 

To prohibit certain off-post demonstrations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 7, 2024 

Mr. COTTON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit certain off-post demonstrations. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prohibiting Certain 

5 Off-Post Demonstrations Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN OFF-POST DEMONSTRA7 TIONS. 

8 (a) PROHIBITION.—Members of the United States 

9 Armed Forces are prohibited from participating in off-post 

10 demonstrations under any of the following circumstances: 

11 (1) They are on-duty. 

12 (2) They are in a foreign country. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3890 IS

1 (3) The activities constitute a breach of law and 

2 order. 

3 (4) Violence is likely to result. 

4 (5) They are in uniform in violation of Depart5 ment of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1334.1, ‘‘Wear6 ing of the Uniform,’’ or any successor regulation. 

7 (6) The demonstration is against United States 

8 military action. 

9 (7) The demonstration is against United States 

10 support of a United States ally at war. 

11 (8) The demonstration is outside the embassy 

12 of the United States or a United States ally. 

13 (b) DERELICTION OF DUTY.—Failure to adhere to 

14 the prohibition in subsection (a) shall be punishable under 

15 section 892 of title 10, United States Code (article 92 of 

16 the Uniform Code of Military Justice). 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Case 2:02-cv-04398-BWK Document 16 Filed 01/14/2003 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-04398-BWK Document 16 Filed 01/14/2003 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-04398-BWK Document 16 Filed 01/14/2003 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-04398-BWK Document 16 Filed 01/14/2003 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-04398-BWK Document 16 Filed 01/14/2003 Page 5 of 5
Before the First Division,

February 20, 1946

No. 50896.

#### Protest 120909-K of Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

At the trial the collector’s letter and statements attached to each entry showing the goods remaining in warehouse on the effective date of T. D. 50797 were received in evidence. Following Abstract 48988 the bottles in question were held properly dutiable at *Vs*cent per pound under paragraphs 217 and 810, as modified by T. D. 50797.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD 

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS FOR METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20585 

Monday, April 18, 2011 

Room 8E-089 

Purpose 

The Department of Energy (DOE) is holding this public meeting to discuss the energy 

conservation standard preliminary analysis. DOE will also explain its plans for the 

remaining analyses for the rulemaking. Lastly, DOE will seek comment on the 

rulemaking, including planned methodologies, assumptions, and data sources. 

Agenda 

 9:00-9:10 am Welcome; Introductions; Agenda Review; and Opening 

Statements Tina Kaarsberg, PhD and Doug Brookman

 9:10-10:15 am Overview, Statute, and Context; Market Assessment; 

Technology Assessment; Screening Analysis 

Brian Coffey 

 10:15-10:30 am Break 

 10:30-11:15 am Engineering Analysis 

Matthew Walker 

 11:15-11:40 am Energy Use/End-Use Load Characterization and 

Markups for Equipment Price Determination 

Michael Myer and Scott Morris 

 11:40 am-12:30 pm Lunch 

 12:30-1:30 pm Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period; Shipments; and 

National Impacts Analyses 

Scott Morris 

 1:30-1:40 pm Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

 Hayden Cook 

 1:40-1:50 pm NOPR Analyses 

Michael Myer 

 1:50-2:00 pm Closing Remarks 

 Tina Kaarsberg, PhD
# C_2018005EN.01005201.xml

| 8.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/52

---

Order of the General Court of 7 November 2017 — HO v EEAS

(Case T-595/16) (1)

1

(2018/C 005/70)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  C 251, 11.7.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-25/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

1

---
NO. 07-05-0149-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

APRIL 27, 2005

______________________________

THE FEED STORE, INC., d/b/a CHAD and PATRICIA LANGSTON, et al.,

Appellants

V.

SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF HOUSTON, INC.,

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE COUNTY CIVIL COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF HARRIS COUNTY;

NO. 823,840; HON. GARY MICHAEL BLOCK, PRESIDING

_______________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

_______________________________

Before QUINN, REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

Appellants The Feed Store, Inc., d/b/a Chad and Patricia Langston, et al. filed a

notice of appeal on February 22, 2005. However, they did not pay the $125 filing fee

required from appellants under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 5. Nor did they file an

affidavit of indigence per Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1. By letter from this Court

dated April 15, 2005, we informed appellants that “the filing fee has not been paid in the

captioned appeal. Unless the filing fee in the amount of $125.00 is paid by Monday, April
2

25, 2005, this appeal will be subject to dismissal.” TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); see Holt v. F.

F. Enterprises, 990 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1998, pet. ref’d). The deadline lapsed,

and the fee was not received. 

Because appellants have failed to pay the requisite filing fee as directed by the court,

we dismiss the appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c). 

 

Per Curiam
No. 46076.

#### Protest 980030-G/88375 of Walter Libmann, M. D. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Keeps, J.

There was testimony that the apparatus was new and it never had been subjected to use. On the record presented the claim for free entry was overruled.
No. 66777.

#### Heeksuede, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/9604, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cotton cloth similar in all material respects to that - the subject of *United States*v. *D. H. Grant & Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 20, C.A.D. 723), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 49986.

#### Petition 6479-R of Musolino Lo Conte Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The circumstances relating to entry and final appraisement of the merchandise in question are practically the same as those involved in-Abstract 49970. Here, as there, the legal principle governing the dutiable value-*198of the merchandise in Question was set forth in *Luigi Vilelli Elvea*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 466, Reap. Dec. 5661), affirmed in *United States*v. *Luigi Vilelli Elvea*(11 Cust. Ct. 437, Reap. Dec. 5941). Although the court sustained the basis for appraisement claimed by the importer in *Baffaele D’Amora*v. *United States*(13 Cust. Ct. 340, Reap. Dec. 6035), adjustment of nondutiable charges resulted in higher final appraised values, from which additional duties accrued.

From the testimony it appeared that prior to entry petitioner had consulted with customs officials concerning the dutiable value of the imported merchandise and had made inquiry concerning prices of competitors in the trade as well as the Italian Chamber of Commerce of New York. Based upon the information received, petitioner decided to adhere to its invoice and purchase prices and adjudicate the matter of proper dutiable value in reappraisement proceedings before the court. From an examination of the record and a consideration of the facts in the case, the court was satisfied that the entry at a less value than that found on final appraisement was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts or to deceive the appraiser. The petition was therefore granted.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 35 (Thursday, February 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 8072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2941]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Committee of the 
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Committee of 
the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The 
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) is soliciting public comments, ideas, and 
suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue 
Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Friday, March 9, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Coffman at 1-888-912-1227, or 
206-220-6096.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Committee of the 
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Friday, March 9, 2007 from 9 a.m. 
Pacific Time to 10:30 a.m. Pacific Time via a telephone conference 
call. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, 
please call 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6096, or write to Dave Coffman, 
TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174 or you can 
contact us at http://www.improveirs.org. Due to limited conference 
lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone 
conference call meeting must be made with Dave Coffman. Mr. Coffman can 
be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6096.
    The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.

    Dated: February 13, 2007.
John Fay,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
 [FR Doc. E7-2941 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 1SUPPLEMENT	&"Arial,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2024 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2024-01	&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000DRAFT&K000000 VII VDR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 11/29/23
**C109**To record the receipt of previously anticipated collections. 

**Comment:**See USSGL TC-C108 for unidentified collections. Also post USSGL TC-A122 if authority was previously anticipated and apportioned or USSGL TC-A123 if authority was previously anticipated in programs exempt from apportionment. See USSGL TCs-A710, A712, A714, and C186 for reimbursable agreement transactions. See USSGL TC-C156 for the collection of interest receivable from securities held by a nonfiduciary deposit fund. Fiduciary deposit funds would not record a budgetary entry. See TCs C453 and C457 for daily inflation or deflation of Treasury Inflation Protected Securities. 

**Reference:**USSGL implementation guidance; USSGL Budgetary Accounting Guide 

**Budgetary Entry**

Debit 426000 Actual Collections of Governmental-Type Fees 

Debit 426100 Actual Collections of Business-Type Fees 

Debit 426200 Actual Collections of Loan Principal 

Debit 426300 Actual Collections of Loan Interest 

Debit 426400 Actual Collections of Rent 

Debit 426500 Actual Collections From Sale of Foreclosed Property 

Debit 426600 Other Actual Business-Type Collections From Non-Federal Sources 

Debit 426700 Other Actual Governmental-Type Collections From Non-Federal Sources 

Debit 427300 Interest Collected From Treasury 

Debit 427600 Actual Collections From Financing Fund 

Debit 427700 Other Actual Collections - Federal 

Credit 406000 Anticipated Collections From Non-Federal Sources 

Credit 407000 Anticipated Collections From Federal Sources 

**Proprietary Entry**

Debit 101000 Fund Balance With Treasury 

Credit 131000 Accounts Receivable 

Credit 132000 Funded Employment Benefit Contributions Receivable 

Credit 134000 Interest Receivable - Not Otherwise Classified 

Credit 134100 Interest Receivable - Loans 

Credit 134200 Interest Receivable - Investments 

Credit 134300 Interest Receivable - Taxes 

Credit 135000 Loans Receivable 

Credit 136000 Penalties and Fines Receivable - Not Otherwise Classified 

Credit 136100 Penalties and Fines Receivable - Loans 

Credit 136300 Penalties and Fines Receivable - Taxes 

Credit 137000 Administrative Fees Receivable - Not Otherwise Classified 

Credit 137100 Administrative Fees Receivable - Loans 

Credit 137300 Administrative Fees Receivable - Taxes 

Credit 139900 Allowance for Subsidy 

Credit 155100 Foreclosed Property 

Credit 510000 Revenue From Goods Sold 

Credit 520000 Revenue From Services Provided 

Credit 531000 Interest Revenue - Other 

Credit 531100 Interest Revenue - Investments 

Credit 531200 Interest Revenue - Loans Receivable/Uninvested Funds 

Credit 532000 Penalties and Fines Revenue 

Credit 532500 Administrative Fees Revenue 

Credit 540000 Funded Benefit Program Revenue 

Credit 550000 Insurance and Guarantee Premium Revenue 

Credit 575000 Expenditure Financing Sources - Transfers-In

Credit 590000 Other Revenue

Credit 599700 Financing Sources Transferred In From Custodial Statement Collections 

Draft		IRC Handout September 25, 2018
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE : CIVIL ACTION

INSURANCE CO. et al., : NO. 05-5368

:

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

ARNOLD LINCOW et al., :

:

Defendants. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 6th day of February, 2009, it is hereby

ORDERED that Jeffrey M. Lindy, Esq.’s unopposed motion for

permission to withdraw as counsel for Defendant Steven Hirsch

(doc. no. 515) is GRANTED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

 S/Eduardo C. Robreno 

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Engineers

We
refer to our report auditing estimates of the natural gas, natural gas liquids and oil reserves attributable to Husky Energy Inc. (the Company) as of December 31, 2013 (the Report).

We hereby consent to the use and reference to our name and the Report described or incorporated by reference in the Companys Annual Report on Form 40-F
for the year ended December 31, 2013 and the Companys registration statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-187135) and Form F-10 (File No. 333-191849), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, as applicable.

Sincerely,



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|McDaniel & Associates Consultants Ltd.
|                                      
|/s/ B.J. Wurster, P. Eng.             
|B.J. Wurster, P.Eng.                  
|Vice President                        

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

March 6, 2014
# C_2016462EN.01002202.xml

| 12.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2016 — Caffè Nero Group v EUIPO (CAFFÈ NERO)

(Case T-29/16) (1)

1

(((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark CAFFÈ NERO - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptiveness - Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 462/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Caffè Nero Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Cassidy, Solicitor)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2015 (Case R 410/2015-1), relating to the application for registration of the word sign CAFFÈ NERO 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 Caffè Nero Group Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Caffè Nero Group Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.

1

---