alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017121EN.01002801.xml

| 18.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2017 — Labeyrie v EUIPO — Delpeyrat (Representation of a sowing of golden fish on a blue background)

(Case T-766/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark representing a sowing of golden fish on a blue background - Declaration of revocation - Genuine use of the mark - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form that differs in elements does not alter the distinctive character))

(2017/C 121/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Labeyrie (Saint-Geours-de-Maremne, France) (represented by: A. Lecomte, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Delpeyrat (Saint-Pierre-du-Mont, France) (represented by: J. Ennochi, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 October 2015 (Case R 2693/2014-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Depeyrat and Labeyrie.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Labeyrie to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Labeyrie to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by EUIPO;

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

3.

Orders Delpeyrat to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.

1

---
(logo)CWCapital

          ASSET MANAGEMENT

 

**Annual Statement asto Compliance**

**For the Period ofJanuary 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018**

** **

** **

**CFCRE 2016-C3**

** **

 

Inaccordance with Item 1123 of Regulation AB and with the requirements detailedin §10.11 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) forthe above-mentioned CMBS pool, CWCapital Asset Management LLC (“CWCAM”),in its capacity as Special Servicer, is providing this Officer’s Certificatewith respect to the following:

 

(A)    a review of CWCAM’sactivities during the period noted above (the “Reporting Period”) and ofCWCAM’s performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

 

(B)    to the best of myknowledge, based on such review, CWCAM has fulfilled all its obligations underthe Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

Shouldyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.  

 

Sincerely,

CWCapitalAsset Management LLC

 

 

/s/ JamesP. Shevlin

JamesP. Shevlin

President/ChiefOperating Officer

 

 

7501Wisconsin Avenue | Suite 500 West | Bethesda, MD | 20814
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                         (25092)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    60027
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     506334
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                551309
<PP&E>                                         1468270
<DEPRECIATION>                                   49200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2040425
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2813648
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                       7545
<COMMON>                                        121134
<OTHER-SE>                                    (298771)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2404425
<SALES>                                        1525980
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1525980
<CGS>                                          1425663
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1425663
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 56691
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               80784
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (37158)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (37158)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (37158)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (37158)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Before the First Division,

February 27, 1943

No. 48060.

#### Protests 88827-K, etc., of Ignaz Strauss *&*Co. *(New*York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

The exhibits consisted of bags, doilies, and mats, of various kinds, some composed in part of colored sea grass and some not. It appeared that the controversy is whether the terms “grass” and “straw” mean these substances in their natural state and not the separated fibers thereof. Two witnesses testified, one for the plaintiff and one for the defendant. . The buyer of the plaintiff-corporation testified that he had been in China and had seen its manufacture; that it grew in various lengths and widths, and is gathered and made into bundles which are brought to home workers, who, if the article to be woven is to be of natural color, wet it and proceed to weave; and if the article is to be colored, “those particular strings” are dyed before it is woven; that in the course of weaving the pieces of sea grass, which are not of uniform width, are cut by the workers “partly with their fingernails and partly by knife”; that after weaving the article is bleached by exposing it to the sun for varying periods from a couple of days to a week and longer. The witness for the defendant testified that his firm had imported articles similar to exhibit 1 and'to one of the other exhibits, although not colored, and that he had been in China and seen such merchandise manufactured from sea grass. His description of the process varied somewhat from that of the preceding witness in that, he said, after gathering the sea grass, which it is apparently undisputed, is green when growing, it is laid in the sun to dry out, during the course of which it is bleached by the action of the sun into a yellow and brown color “much like straw does, or grass into hay.” Both witnesses agreed that sea grass could not be manufactured into articles in the condition as taken from the water. It was the court’s opinion that the plaintiff failed to prove that the merchandise involved is composed in chief value of sea grass in other than its natural state, or in chief value of the separated fibers thereof, and that it would appear the placing of the sea grass in the sun, either before or after weaving, had for its primary purpose the drying thereof, and that the bleaching was incidental. It is obvious that the grass would have to be dried, either before or after weaving, so that the natural state of the dried grass would be the so-called “bleached” state. On the record presented the protests were overruled. *Isler & Guye*v. *United States*(10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 74, T. D. 38339) distinguished.
Before the Second Division,

March 12, 1943

No. 48096.

#### Protests 979421-G, etc., of E. J. Keller Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

The only witness, the vice president of the importing company, testified that the merchandise in question is in all respects similar to exhibit 1 in *Green*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 173, C. D. 599), excepting that the merchandise in the case at bar is of lighter color, which makes it a little easier to bleach, and also is of a little shorter staple; that from his experience in handling this character of merchandise it was chiefly used for the manufacture of paper, although also used for textile purposes, but by far the bulk of it was used for paper making. On the record as made, together with the record in C. D. 599, *supra,*which was incorporated herein, the court was of the opinion the facts that the merchandise at bar is of slightly less staple length and that it may be of lighter color are hardly sufficient to change its character so as to make it more fit for textile purposes than for paper making, especially in view of the fact that in the incorporated case the testimony showed that the flax noils had longer fibers than Russian flax waste, and also that the flax waste there involved could not be satisfactorily or commercially used for linen crash or flax towels even by blending it with a.better quality of flax noilfe. The merchandise in question was therefore held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1750, as claimed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Tower Properties Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas
R. Willard, Chief Executive Officer 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 financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

/s/Thomas R. Willard
--------------------
Thomas R. Willard
Chief Executive Officer
May 14, 2004

                                       22
#### Edward Boote *v.*United States

No. 7582.

Entry No. 726110.

Invoice dated Birmingham, England, October 1945.

Certified October 1945.

Entered at New York, N. Y., December 5, 1945.

(Decided April 27, 1948)

*Benjamin A. Levett*for the plaintiff.

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

Johnson, Judge:

This proceeding has been submitted upon a stipulation wherein the parties hereto have agreed that the issues involved in this reappraise*436ment are the same in all material respects as in the case of *United States*v. *Wm.*S. *Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334. The record in that case was-admitted as part of the record herein.

In view of the aforesaid stipulation and accepting same as a statement of fact, and in view of the decision cited, I find and hold that the export value of the-merchandise is the value found by the appraiser, less any additions on entry by the importer by reason of advances by the appraiser in similar cases to equal the so-called British purchase tax.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2016428EN.01001601.xml

| 21.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2016 — Guccio Gucci v EUIPO — Guess? IP Holder (Representation of four interlocking Gs)

(Case T-753/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Application for an EU figurative mark representing four interlocking Gs - Earlier EU and international figurative marks G - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 428/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Guccio Gucci SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: P.L. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Guess? IP Holder LP (Los Angeles, California, United States) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 October 2015 (Case R 1703/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Guccio Gucci and Guess? IP Holder.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Guccio Gucci SpA to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by Guess? IP Holder LP before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Guccio Gucci SpA to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by Guess? IP Holder LP before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.

1

---
Exhibit 35.9



|     |  |                                                                                                          
|---- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing D1050-084, 8th Fl 401 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2016, by and among CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL
MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, C-III ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, as Special Servicer, PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor and
Asset Representations Reviewer, CITIBANK, N.A., as Certificate Administrator and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-P3
(the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.08 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify
that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such
period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2018.



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO                                                  
|Daniel Bober Executive Vice President
Wells Fargo Bank



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
# C_2017063EN.01000601.xml

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/6

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 October 2016 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van koophandel Brussel — Belgium) — Uber Belgium BVBA v Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV

(Case C-526/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Inadmissibility - Transportation of persons by motor vehicles - Private drivers using a smart phone application to connect them to people wishing to travel within urban areas - Requirement to hold an operating permit))

(2017/C 063/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van koophandel Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Uber Belgium BVBA

Applicant:

Defendant: Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV

Defendant:

in the presence of: Uber International BV, Rasier Operations BV, Uber BV, Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Belgische Federatie van Taxis, Nationale Groepering van Ondernemingen met Taxi — and Locatievoertuigen met Chauffeur VZW

in the presence of:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van koophandel Brussel (Dutch-language Commercial Court, Brussels, Belgium), by decision of 23 September 2015, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 429, 21.12.2015.

1

---
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 United Refining Company, (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James E. Murphy, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my
knowledge, 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 Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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





                                            / s / James E. Murphy
                                            --------------------------
                                            James E. Murphy
                                            Principal Financial Officer
                                            January 14, 2003
#### Deric COAKLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEARIVER MARITIME, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-30569.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided July 18, 2005.

See also 319 F.Supp.2d 712.

Timothy John Young, The Young Firm, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Thomas J. Wagner, Thomas Arnoult Rayer, Jr., Wagner *&*Bagot, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Deric Coakley sued his employer, SeaRiver Maritime, Inc. (“SeaRiver”), for injuries sustained while employed by SeaRiver as a seaman. Coakley slipped on ice on a barge owned by Kirby Inland Marine, Inc. (“Kirby”), which was being towed by Seariver pursuant to a reciprocal towing agreement between Kirby and SeaRiver.

Coakley appeals the district court’s summary judgment dismissing Coakley’s unseaworthiness claims. The district court correctly concluded that SeaRiver was not the owner pro hac vice of the barge on which Coakley was injured. The contract between SeaRiver and Kirby was *566for towage. SeaRiver did not assume the incidents of ownership necessary for the creation of a bareboat charter or ownership pro hac vice. *See Torch, Inc. v. Alesich,*148 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir.1998); *Ducote v. International Operating Co. of Louisiana, Inc.,*678 F.2d 543, 546 (5th Cir.1982). As SeaRiver was not the owner or owner pro hac vice, it is not liable for any unseaworthy condition of the barges in its tow. *See Forrester v. Ocean Marine Indem. Co.,*11 F.3d 1213, 1215 (5th Cir.1993); *Guidry v. Continental Oil Co.,*640 F.2d 523, 530 (5th Cir.1981).

Coakley next argues that the district court erred in refusing to strike a juror for cause. Our review of the record demonstrates that the district court adequately questioned the juror to assure her impartiality and did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike the juror for cause. *See Smith v. Shell Oil Co.,*746 F.2d 1087, 1097-98 (5th Cir.1984).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
(Reap. Dec. 9815)

#### Air Express International Agency, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 491800, etc.

(Decided October 20, 1960)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Oochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The records indicate that there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff when the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated on the schedule attached to and made part of this decision were called for hearing, and the cases were consequently ordered submitted by the court.

Rule 5(a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any ease shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the records in the appeals before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.