alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016392EN.01003301.xml

| 24.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2016 — hyphen v EUIPO — Skylotec (Representation of a polygon)

(Case T-146/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark representing a polygon - Genuine use of a mark - Second subparagraph of Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form differing in components which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark))

(2016/C 392/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: hyphen GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail and M. Hoffmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Skylotec GmbH (Neuwied, Germany) (represented by: M. De Zorti and M. Helfrich, lawyers)

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 Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2015 (Case R 1506/2014-4), concerning revocation proceedings between Skylotec and hyphen.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 March 2015 (Case R 1506/2014-4), concerning revocation proceedings between Skylotec GmbH and hyphen GmbH in so far as the Board of Appeal found, with respect to goods in Classes 9 and 25 within the meaning of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, that the proprietor of the registered European Union trade mark should have its rights revoked. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 March 2015 (Case R 1506/2014-4), concerning revocation proceedings between Skylotec GmbH and hyphen GmbH in so far as the Board of Appeal found, with respect to goods in Classes 9 and 25 within the meaning of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, that the proprietor of the registered European Union trade mark should have its rights revoked.

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by hyphen. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by hyphen.

| 4. | Orders Skylotec to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Skylotec to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.

1

---
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 314 

Designating Thursday, November 17, 2005, as ‘‘Feed America Thursday’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2005 

Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. BENNETT) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating Thursday, November 17, 2005, as ‘‘Feed 

America Thursday’’. 

Whereas Thanksgiving Day celebrates the spirit of selfless 

giving and an appreciation for family and friends; 

Whereas the spirit of Thanksgiving Day is a virtue upon 

which our Nation was founded; 

Whereas 33,000,000 Americans, including 13,000,000 children, continue to live in households that do not have an 

adequate supply of food; 

Whereas almost 3,000,000 of those children experience hunger; and 

Whereas selfless sacrifice breeds a genuine spirit of Thanksgiving, both affirming and restoring fundamental principles in our society: Now, therefore, be it 
2 

•SRES 314 ATS

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates Thursday, November 17, 2005, 

3 as ‘‘Feed America Thursday’’; and 

4 (2) calls upon the people of the United States 

5 to sacrifice 2 meals on Thursday, November 17, 

6 2005, and to donate the money that they would have 

7 spent on food to a religious or charitable organiza8 tion of their choice for the purpose of feeding the 

9 hungry. 

Æ
(logo)ncb 

National Cooperative Bank

 

2011 Crystal Drive

Suite, 800

Arlington, VA 22202

 

 

**FORMOF ANNUAL COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

CERTIFICATIONWells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-C33, Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates, Series 2016-C33 (the “Trust”)

I,Karyn Mann, on behalf of National Cooperative Bank, N.A., as NCB MasterServicer (the “Certifying Servicer”), certify to Wells Fargo CommercialMortgage Securities, Inc. and its officers, directors and affiliates, and withthe knowledge and intent that they will rely upon this certification, that:

1.            I (or Servicing Officers undermy supervision) have reviewed theCertifying Servicer’s activities during the preceding calendar year betweenJanuary 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”) and theCertifying Servicer’s performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement;and

2.            To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Certifying Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement inall material respects during the Reporting Period.  

 

Date: February 6, 2018

 

National Cooperative Bank,N.A.

as NCB Master Servicer

 

By: /s/ Karyn Mann

Name: Karyn Mann

Title: Senior Vice President
(logo) GREYSTONE

 

C-III ASSET MANAGEMENT LLCd/b/a

GREYSTONE SPECIAL SERVICING

5221 N. O’Connor Blvd., Suite800

Irving, Texas 75039

Phone: 972-868-5300

Fax: 972-868-5303

 

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

**C-III Asset Management LLC**

 

The undersigned, Barry Davis,Vice President of C-III Asset Management LLC, the current Special Servicerunder that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1,2016, relating to the **Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2016-C28,Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-C28** (the“Pooling and Servicing Agreement”), hereby certifies as follows:

 

1.  a review of theactivities of the Special Servicer and of its performance under the Pooling andServicing Agreement during the calendar year 2019 (the “Reporting Period”) hasbeen made under the undersigned’s supervision;

 

2.  to the best of theundersigned’s knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer hasfulfilled in all material respects its obligations under the Pooling andServicing Agreement throughout the Reporting Period.

 

Capitalized terms nototherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Pooling andServicing Agreement.

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, as of the 1st day of March, 2020, I have hereuntosigned my name.

 

/s/ Barry Davis

**Barry Davis**, Vice President
# C_2017121EN.01002701.xml

| 18.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2017 — Silvan v Commission

(Case T-698/15) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - 2013 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote the appellant - Comparison of the merits - Taking into account of staff reports - No error of law))

(2017/C 121/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Juha Tapio Silvan (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2015, Silvan v Commission (F-83/14, EU:F:2015:106), and asking for annulment of that judgment.

Silvan

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2) | Orders Mr Juha Tapio Silvan to bear his own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Mr Juha Tapio Silvan to bear his own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

1

---
(Reap. Dec. 9582)

#### Gehrig, Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 907509 1/3, etc.

(Decided January 15, 1960)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran JDoub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made part of this decision, present the question of the proper dutiable value of certain scientific instruments.

These cases have been submitted for decision upon a stipulation of fact wherein it has 'been agreed that the merchandise and the issues herein are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues in the case of *Fisher Scientific Company*v. *United*States, 42 *554Cust. Ct. 657, Reap. Dec. 9444, tbe record in which case has been incorporated herein.

The parties have further stipulated and agreed that the prices at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoice unit values, plus packing, as invoiced. It was also stipulated and agreed that, on or about the dates of exportation of the merchandise in issue, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for export to the United States.

Upon the record before the court, I find and hold that foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. §1402 (c)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, is the proper basis of value for the merchandise in issue and that said value is represented by the invoice unit values, plus packing, as invoiced. As to all other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
# C_2018104EN.01002901.xml

| 19.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — Edeka-Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring v Commission

(Case T-611/15) (1)

1

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Table of contents of the Commission file relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU - Refusal of access - Obligation to state reasons - Obligation to inform about available remedies - Exception for the protection of the purpose of investigations - General presumption of confidentiality))

(2018/C 104/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Edeka-Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring mbH (Melsungen, Germany) (represented by: E. Wagner and H. Hoffmeyer, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, L. Wildpanner and A. Buchet, then F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, A. Buchet and F. Erlbacher and finally F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and A. Buchet, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 3 September 2015 refusing the applicant access to the non-confidential version of the Commission decision of 4 December 2013 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement [Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD) — Settlement procedure] and to the table of contents of the administrative file of that procedure and, secondly, action based on Article 265 TFEU and seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to establish a non-confidential version of Decision C(2013) 8512 final and of the table of contents relating to that procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Edeka-Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring mbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Edeka-Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring mbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.

1

---
No. 41987.

#### Protest 918823-G of Haruta & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of paperweights plated with silver. On. the authority of *Woolworth*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 221, C. A. D. 20) the claim at 50 percent under paragraph 339 was sustained.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 54766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2013-09427]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 62

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0405 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534; FRL- 9802-3]
RIN 2060-AR-11 and RIN 2060-A004

Federal Plan Requirements for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste 
Incinerators Constructed On or Before December 1, 2008, and Standards 
of Performance for New Stationary Sources: Hospital/Medical/Infectious 
Waste Incinerators

Correction

    In rule document 2013-09427 appearing on pages 28052-28078 in the 
issue of Monday, May 13, 2013, make the following correction:

Sec.  62.14470  [Corrected]

0
1. On page 28074, in the third column, in the fifth line, ``May 13, 
2016'' should read ``August 13, 2013''.

[FR Doc. C1-2013-09427 Filed 9-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

 

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906

OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofUnico American Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2016, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Michael Budnitsky, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

     /s/ MichaelBudnitsky

Name:  Michael Budnitsky

Title:    Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer

Date:   August 11,2016

 

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronicversion of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Unico American Corporation, and

will be retained by Unico American Corporation, and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 46912.

#### Petition 6090-R of United States Graphite Co. (Nogales).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

At the hearing it appeared that due to the fluctuating reports received from the American Consul at Guyamas, a conference was held between the assistant collector, several officers of the petitioning company, the customs attorney, and one of the witnesses who is connected with the customs broker in this case, at which it was agreed to enter the graphite at a value of $7.50 per ton, plus dutiable charges, and that a foreign investigation would be made in the matter to ascertain the proper value. The only other witness, an agent of the petitioning company, testified that the-importer is the sole owner of the Mexican subsidiary and that the latter company ships all of its products to the said importing company, the petitioner herein. His testimony also corroborated that of the former witness. On the record presented the court was satisfied as to the good faith of the petitioner and therefore granted the petition.
#### Weil Bros. Textiles, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6421.

Entry No. 845299, etc.

Invoices dated Gendbrugge, Belgium, April 28, 1939, etc.

Certified April 29, 1939, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 16, 1939, etc.

(Decided October 4, 1946)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (J. Stuart Tompkins*of counsel), *Benjamin A.*Levett, associate counsel, for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judgo:

The appeals for reappraisemeut listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the attorneys for the respective parties, subject to the approval of the court, as follows:

> (1) That the merchandise, cotton rugs from Belgium, and the issues involved in the Reappraisement Appeals 131673-A 01104, etc.? listed in annexed schedule A, which is referred to and made a part of this stipulation are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and the issues which were passed upon in the case of *United States*v. *Stephen Rug Mills, Inc.,*Reappraisement 131005-A, *361etc., Reap. Dec. 6283, wherein it was held that there was no foreign value for the merchandise; that export value was the proper basis for determining dutiable value, and that the export values for the merchandise were the entered values.

> (2) That the record in said case, Reappraisement 131005-A, etc., Reap. Dec. 6283, may be and hereby is received in evidence as a part of the record in this case.

> (3) That the prices at the time of exportation of the merchandise in suit to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, are the appraised values less the amounts added on entry because of advances made by the appraiser in other cases then pending on appeal for reappraisement.

> (4) That the appeals 131673-A 01104, etc., listed in annexed schedule A are hereby submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraiséd values, less the amounts added on entry because of advances made by the appraiser in other cases then pending on appeal for reappraisement.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2018022EN.01003301.xml

| 22.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2017 — Red Bull v EUIPO — Optimum Mark (Combination of the colours blue and silver)

(Joined Cases T-101/15 and T-102/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU trade mark consisting of a combination of the colours blue and silver - Absolute ground for refusal - Graphic representation that is sufficiently clear and precise - Need for a systematic arrangement associating the colours in a predetermined and uniform way - Legitimate expectations - Article 4 and Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 4 and Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 022/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: A. Renck, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Marques (Leicester, United Kingdom) (represented by: initially R. Mallinson and F. Delord, Solicitors, and subsequently R. Mallinson, Solicitor)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Optimum Mark sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: R. Skubisz, M. Mazurek, J. Dudzik and E. Jaroszyńska-Kozłowska, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

Two actions brought against two decisions of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2014 (Case R 2037/2013-1 and Case R 2036/2013-1, respectively), relating to invalidity proceedings between Optimum Mark and Red Bull.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Red Bull GmbH to pay the costs, including those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Optimum Mark sp. z o.o.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Red Bull GmbH to pay the costs, including those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Optimum Mark sp. z o.o.;

| 3. | Orders Marques to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Marques to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

1

---
February 14, 1968

No. 68-1.

#### William M. Clark, 2D LT, U. S. Army.

ORDERED by the Court that said Petition be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.