alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016191EN.01002801.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Spirig Pharma v EUIPO (Daylong)

(Case T-261/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative trade mark Daylong - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 191/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Spirig Pharma AG (Egerkingen, Switzerland) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Melgar and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 March 2015 (Case R 2455/2014-4), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Daylong 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 Spirig Pharma AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Spirig Pharma AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.

1

---
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                              AMENDED AND RESTATED
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     THIS FIRST  AMENDMENT  (this  "FIRST  AMENDMENT")  TO AMENDED AND  RESTATED
EMPLOYMENT  AGREEMENT is entered into as of this 1st day of April,  1998, by and
between MICROAGE,  INC., a Delaware  corporation (the "COMPANY") and Christopher
J. Koziol ("EXECUTIVE").

                                    RECITALS:

     WHEREAS,  the Company and  Executive  entered  into an Amended and Restated
Employment Agreement,  dated as of November 4,1996 (the "EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT");
and

     WHEREAS,   the  Company  and  Executive  desire  to  amend  the  Employment
Agreement;

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  in consideration of the premises,  and for other valuable
consideration,  the  sufficiency of which is hereby  acknowledged by each of the
parties hereto, the parties hereby agree as follows:

                                   AGREEMENT:

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT.

     The first  sentence of Section 1.2 of the  Employment  Agreement  is hereby
amended in its entirety to read as follows:

          "(a)  Executive  shall  serve  as  President  of  Pinacor,  Inc.,  the
     Company's distribution  subsidiary (or in a capacity and with a title of at
     least substantially equivalent quality)."

     SECTION 2. EFFECTIVENESS.

     This First Amendment will become effective as of April 1,1998.

     SECTION 3. MISCELLANEOUS.

     A. Full Force and Effect.

     Except as  expressly  provided  in this  First  Amendment,  the  Employment
Agreement will remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
<PAGE>
     B. Counterparts.

     This First Amendment may be executed in any number Qf counterparts,  all of
which taken together will constitute one and the same instrument, and any of the
parties hereto may execute this First Amendment by signing any such counterpart.

     A. Arizona Law.

     It is the intention of the parties that the laws of Arizona will govern the
validity  of this  First  Amendment,  the  construction  of its  terms,  and the
interpretation of the rights and duties of the parties.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment
as of the date first above written.

                                        Company:

                                        MICROAGE, INC.

                                        By: /s/ Jeffrey D. McKeever
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Jeffrey D. McKeever
                                            Chairman of the Board and
                                            Chief Executive Officer


                                        Executive:


                                        /s/ Christopher J. Koziol
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Christopher J. Koziol
# C_2016270EN.01004201.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO (Representation of a peace symbol)

(Case T-583/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a peace symbol - Application for restitutio in integrum - Non-compliance with the time limit for bringing an action before the General Court))

(2016/C 270/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 July 2015 (Case R 2788/2014-2), concerning an application for registration as an EU trade mark of a figurative sign representing a peace symbol.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.

1

---
No. 55473.

#### Lian Bros. *v.*United States,

protest 130338-K/12911 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the Federal Reserve bank certified dual rates of exchange for the currency involved in the liquidation of the entries for the dates of exportation of *the*merchandise covered by the entries and that the circumstances relating to the liquidation of the said entries are similar in all material respects to those in Abstract 54732. In view of this stipulation, and following the cited decision it was held that the currency of the invoices-covered by certain enumerated entries should have been converted in the manner directed by the judgment of this court in said Abstract 54732, in accordance with Bureau of Customs Circular Letter No. 2675, dated October 19, 1949.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6963

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROY KWACZALA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-142) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 26, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Kwaczala, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Roy Kwaczala appeals from the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of coram nobis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Kwaczala , No. CR-93-142 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2015262EN.01004301.xml

| 10.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/43

---

Action brought on 15 June 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-87/15)

(2015/C 262/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, A. Tymen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to extend recognition that the applicant’s daughter suffers from a serious illness and compensation for the material and non-material damaged allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 25 August 2014 of the Brussels Settlements Office, refusing to extend recognition that the applicant’s daughter suffers from a serious illness; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 25 August 2014 of the Brussels Settlements Office, refusing to extend recognition that the applicant’s daughter suffers from a serious illness;

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 5 March 2015, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 24 November 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 5 March 2015, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 24 November 2014;

| — | order compensation for the material damage and non-material damage suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order compensation for the material damage and non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

---
#### Gerhard & Hey Co., Inc. (Art Book Publications, Inc.) *v.*United States

No. 6252.

Entry No. 50291, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, November 15, 1939, etc.

Certified November 22, 1939, etc.

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

Third Division, Appellate Term

(Decided on rehearing [Reap. Dec. 6226] January 31, 1946)

*Daniel P. McDonald*for the appellant.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spector,*special attorney), for the appellee.

Before Cline, Keefe, and Ekwall, Judges; Keefe, J., not participating

Cline, Judge:

These cases were originally tried before Judge Kincheloe, who held that there was no foreign market value, no export value, and no United States value for the merchandise and that it was dutiable on the basis of cost of production (10 Cust. Ct. 626, Reap. Dec. 5875). Thereafter a motion for a rehearing was granted (11 Cust. Ct. 446, Reap. Dec. 5942) and a decision was rendered holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish the cost of production and finding the proper values to be the values returned by the *322appraiser (Reap. Dec. 6081). An appeal was taken to tbis division and the decision below was affirmed (Reap. Dec. 6226).'

Thereafter a motion was made by the plaintiff for an order setting aside and vacating the judgment of this court and remanding the cases to the trial judge for a rehearing on the ground of newly discovered evidence. An order was then entered vacating and setting aside the judgment of October 17,1945, of this court and the judgment of January 2, 1945, of the trial judge and the case was restored to the docket for a rehearing before the Third Division.

At the rehearing the attorney for the plaintiff moved that the case be remanded to the trial judge with instructions for a new trial. The Government objected, claiming that there were no new facts which have not been considered by this court. It appears from the affidavits attached to the moving papers that the books showing the cost of production of the merchandise were kept in Paris; that André Gloeck-ner, president of Hyperion Press, left Paris a half hour before the Germans entered; that he was able to take with him only a small memorandum book showing the cost of labor and materials; that Mr. Gloeckner returned to France at about the time the decision of this court was handed down; that thereafter plaintiff cabled Hyperion Press in Paris inquiring whether the books of account substantiating Mr. Gloeckner’s testimony regarding costs were available and was advised by cable that all books were available.

It thus appears that books of account which were not available at the time of the original trial in January 1942, and the rehearing in May 1944, can now be produced. Since plaintiff was prevented from presenting all its evidence because of the war and the German occupation of France, it should now be given an opportunity to do so.

For this reason the cases are hereby remanded to the court below for a new trial. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

 ___________________ 

No. 12-60264

___________________ 

TAYLOR BELL; DORA BELL, individually and as mother of Taylor Bell,

Plaintiffs − Appellants

vs.

ITAWAMBA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD; TERESA MCNEECE, 

Superintendent of Education for Itawamba County, Individually and in her 

official capacity; TRAE WIYGUL, principal of Itawamba Agricultural High 

School, Individually and in his official capacity,

Defendants − Appellees

____________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Mississippi, Aberdeen

____________________ 

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC 

(Opinion December 12, 2014, 5 Cir., 2014, 774 F.3d 280)

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, JOLLY, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DENNIS, 

CLEMENT, PRADO, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, GRAVES,

HIGGINSON and COSTA, Circuit Judges. 

BY THE COURT: 

A member of the court having requested a poll on the petition for 

rehearing en banc, and a majority of the circuit judges in regular active 

service and not disqualified having voted in favor, 

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc 

with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a 

briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 19, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
No. 40387.

#### Protest 831217-G of New York Merchandise Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of wooden cabinets similar to those the subject of Abstract 37636. The claim at 335⁄8 percent under paragraph 412 was therefore sustained.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification

 

I,Cory J. Reed, certify that:

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of John Deere Owner Trust 2016 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.                                      Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                                      Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.                                      I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.                                      All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association (as indenture trustee).

 

 

 

 
| Date: January 27,   2017 | By:    | */s/ Cory J. Reed*                            |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   | Cory J. Reed                                  |
|                          |   | President of John Deere   Capital Corporation |
|                          |   | (as Servicer)                                 |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1
 
 
 
 Certification of CEO 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 U.S. Energy Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Keith G. Larsen Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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/ Keith G. LarsenKeith G. Larsen,Chief Executive OfficerAugust 7, 2009
 
 
 This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to U.S. Energy Corp. and will be retained by U.S. Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 2, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

127420 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 127420 

 COA: 246417 

Wayne CC: 01-009240

WILLIAM MOTTEN, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 20, 2004 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p1026 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 2, 2005 

Clerk
# C_2016251EN.01002901.xml

| 11.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2016 — Jochen Schweizer v EUIPO (Du bist, was du erlebst.)

(Case T-301/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Du bist, was du erlebst. - Absolute ground for refusal - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 251/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Jochen Schweizer GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. González Hähnlein, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Pethke and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 April 2015 (Case R 3114/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Du bist, was du erlebst. 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 Jochen Schweizer GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Jochen Schweizer GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.

1

---
No. 47570.

#### Protests 827406-G, etc., of American Seed Co. et al. (Now York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
H E StIfOOt T 

° CHEMiCALS, LLC x 

E-Sperse RS-1616 lot 11309101 

GPC Results 

<500 500-1000 >1000 Total area <1000 

Area 496255 5428218 15908229 21832702 5924473 

% area 2.273% 24.863% 72.864% 100.000% 27.14% 

12/6/2013 

Mw 1277 

Mn 1093 

PDI 1.1682 

<500 500-1000 >1000 Total wt A <1000 

Wt area 8.82 208.03 1060.24 1277.10 216.86 

% wt 0.69% 16.29% 83.02% 100.00% 16.98% 

Weight Percent Distribution ~ 

I 

i I L.O 

x 2.0 

~ 

Q 

N 1.5 

c 0 

a 

01.0 

~ 

a 

t 0.5 

~ 

d 

30.0 

-- --------- — — - 0 <500 -- — - -- 

500-1000 

---- -- — -- -- — -- ----~ Es >1000 

ssp 

- ---- - ------- Ra;. 

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 i 

Time (min) f 

RS-1616 Page 1
No. 53764.

protests 801784-G/84342, etc. (Chicago).

#### Judge & Dolph, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# C_2016287EN.01003501.xml

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/35

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2016 — FV v Council

(Case F-40/15) (1)

1

((Civil service - Assessment - Staff report - Interest in bringing proceedings - Downgrading of analytical assessments - Referral to the Reports Committee - Amendment by the second reporting officer of certain assessments not affecting the overall assessment - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to provide a statement of reasons - Duty to have regard to the welfare of staff))

(2016/C 287/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: FV (represented by: initially by T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers, and subsequently by L. Levi, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2013.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders FV to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders FV to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015, p. 27.

1

---