alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012217EN.01001102.xml

| 21.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Sky Italia s.r.l. v AGCOM

(Case C-234/12)

2012/C 217/23

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sky Italia s.r.l.

Applicant:

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (AGCOM)

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 4 of Directive 2010/13/EU, (1) the general principle of equality and the rules of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the free movement of services, the right of establishment and the free movement of capital be interpreted as precluding the rules in Article 38(5) of Legislative Decree No 177/2005 which lay down shorter hourly advertising limits for pay-TV broadcasters than for free-to-air broadcasters? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 4 of Directive 2010/13/EU, (1) the general principle of equality and the rules of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the free movement of services, the right of establishment and the free movement of capital be interpreted as precluding the rules in Article 38(5) of Legislative Decree No 177/2005 which lay down shorter hourly advertising limits for pay-TV broadcasters than for free-to-air broadcasters?

1

| 2. | Does Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, and does the principle of pluralism in the media, in particular, preclude the rules in Article 38(5) of Legislative Decree No 177/2005 which lay down shorter hourly advertising limits for pay-TV broadcasters than for free-to-air broadcasters, distorting competition and creating — or rather strengthening — dominant positions in the television advertising market? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, and does the principle of pluralism in the media, in particular, preclude the rules in Article 38(5) of Legislative Decree No 177/2005 which lay down shorter hourly advertising limits for pay-TV broadcasters than for free-to-air broadcasters, distorting competition and creating — or rather strengthening — dominant positions in the television advertising market?

---

(1)  OJ 2010, L 95, p. 1.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 91 (Friday, May 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26817-26818]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9062]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.

[[Page 26818]]

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than June 5, 2007.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Tracy Basinger, Director, 
Regional and Community Bank Group) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, 
California 94105-1579:
    1. Franklin Resources, Inc., San Mateo, California; to retain 5.04 
percent of the voting shares of TrustCo Bank Corp NY, Glenville, New 
York, a Federal Savings Bank, and thereby engage in operating a savings 
association pursuant to section 225.28(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 7, 2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-9062 Filed 5-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
No. 96-998.

#### Reliable Business Computers *v.*Heurtebise.

Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
  18 U.S.C. §1350,
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Pacific Rim Mining Corp.
  (the Company) on Form 40-F for the period ended April 30, 2007 as
  filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
  I, Thomas C. Shrake, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
  to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
  the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|July 20, 2007 | /s/ Thomas
      C. Shrake
|------------- | --------------------------
|              |                           
|              | Thomas C. Shrake          
|              | Chief Executive Officer   

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
  906 has been provided to Pacific Rim Mining Corp. and will be retained by Pacific
  Rim Mining Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
  its staff upon request.

---
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Pacific Rim Mining
Corp. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended April 30, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Thomas C. Shrake, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §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
this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

Date: July 27, 2011
    Thomas C. ShrakeThomas C. ShrakeChief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Pacific Rim Mining Corp. and will be retained by
Pacific Rim Mining Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

---
# C_2012399EN.01000901.xml

| 22.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat (Austria) lodged on 6 September 2012 — Backaldrin Österreich The Kornspitz Company GmbH v Pfahnl Backmittel GmbH

(Case C-409/12)

2012/C 399/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberster Patent- und Markensenat

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Backaldrin Österreich The Kornspitz Company GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Pfahnl Backmittel GmbH

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Has a trade mark become ‘the common name. for a product or service’ within the meaning of Article 12(2)(a) of Directive 2008/95/EC, (1) where






  (a) | although traders know that the mark constitutes an indication of origin they do not generally disclose this to end consumers, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Has a trade mark become ‘the common name. for a product or service’ within the meaning of Article 12(2)(a) of Directive 2008/95/EC, (1) where

1

(a)

although traders know that the mark constitutes an indication of origin they do not generally disclose this to end consumers, and

| (b) | (inter alia) on those grounds, end consumers no longer understand the trade mark as an indication of origin but as the common name for goods or services, in respect of which the trade mark is registered? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

(inter alia) on those grounds, end consumers no longer understand the trade mark as an indication of origin but as the common name for goods or services, in respect of which the trade mark is registered?

| 2. | Can the conduct of a proprietor be regarded as ‘inactivity’ for the purposes of Article 12(2)(a) of Directive 2008/95/EC simply if the proprietor of the trade mark remains inactive notwithstanding the fact that traders do not inform customers that the name is a registered trade mark? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the conduct of a proprietor be regarded as ‘inactivity’ for the purposes of Article 12(2)(a) of Directive 2008/95/EC simply if the proprietor of the trade mark remains inactive notwithstanding the fact that traders do not inform customers that the name is a registered trade mark?

| 3. | If, as a consequence of acts or inactivity of the proprietor, a trade mark has become a common name for end consumers, but not in the trade, is that trade mark liable to be revoked if, and only if, end consumers have to use this name because there are no equivalent alternatives? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If, as a consequence of acts or inactivity of the proprietor, a trade mark has become a common name for end consumers, but not in the trade, is that trade mark liable to be revoked if, and only if, end consumers have to use this name because there are no equivalent alternatives?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version), (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).

1

---
No. 47650.

#### Protest 24892-K of M. Pressner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The exhibit in this case consists of a combination pencil and cigar or cigarette lighter. At the hearing two witnesses were called for the importer and two for the Government, the only disagreement in their testimony being as to the use of the articles, plaintiffs’ witnesses testifying chief use was as a pencil and the Government's witnesses testifying they were primarily used as cigar or cigarette lighters. Following *United States*v. *Kann*(20 C. C. P. A. 77, T. D. 45702) the articles were held properly assessed under paragraph 1527 (e) (2).
# C_2014071EN.01003701.xml

| 8.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/37

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 January 2014 — Carpenito v Council

(Case F-136/12) (1)

(2014/C 71/74)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 75.

---
33999.

#### RITCHEA v. RITCHEA.

Marshall, Justice.

In this appeal from the grant of temporary child support, the appellant husband complains that the appellee wife produced no evidence of the financial needs of herself and their minor child at the hearing; that the trial judge based his award solely upon an affidavit submitted after both sides had rested their cases; and that the appellant was afforded no opportunity of Cross examination as to the affidavit.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the trial judge did not rely solely upon the affidavit. There are admissions and evidence in the record tending to show the parties’ income, standard and style of living, and needs. Since the appellant father had knowledge of his own financial situation and of the needs of his son, who was living with him at that time, his failure to produce evidence of such to refute or amplify the appellee’s showing, raised a rebuttable presumption that the appellee’s showing was accurate. Code § 38-119; *Walton v. Walton,*219 Ga. 729, 733 (135 SE2d 886) (1964).

Furthermore, consideration of the affidavit was not error. Since the award of temporary alimony is subject to modification, "[t]he rules of evidence are not as strictly applied at an interlocutory hearing on an application for temporary alimony as in the final trial of the case.” *Gray v. Gray,*226 Ga. 767, 768 (2) (177 SE2d 575) (1970) and cits. The plaintiff is not required to develop her case as fully as would be necessary on the trial for divorce. *Long v. Long,*191 Ga. 606, 607 (13 SE2d 349) (1941). The affidavit was filed pursuant to and in conformity with the local rules of the court, which are not challenged. The appellant has not shown that the facts alleged in the affidavit were untrue, that he requested and was denied an opportunity to either file a counter-affidavit or cross examine as to the affidavit, or even that the award of temporary child support, allegedly based solely on the affidavit, was excessive.

" 'Under our law, the judge has a broad discretion, and it will not be controlled by this court unless it has been manifestly abused. [Cits.]’ *’’Fitts v. Fitts,*230 Ga. 755 (199 *525SE2d 256) (1973). The errors enumerated by the appellant do not show a manifest abuse of discretion,especially since the evidence as a whole supports the award.

Submitted September 1, 1978

Decided November 7, 1978.

*Yancey, Perkins & Barnick, Howard E. Yancey, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Elsie H. Griner, J. Laddie Boatright,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, Jun Zou, the Chief
Financial Officer of CHINA BAK BATTERY, INC. (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY
CERTIFY that:





1.      The
Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the
“Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.      Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the
undersigned has executed this statement this 9th day of August,
2010.





/s/ Jun ZouJun
      ZouChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
China BAK Battery, Inc. and will be retained by China BAK Battery, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.





The
forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether
made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.
John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument 

National Park Service

US Department of the Interior

JUNIOR & SENIOR

RANGER

DISCOVERING 

JOHN DAY 

FOSSIL BEDS

Written, compiled, and directed by Paul Ollig and Michelle Ordway, and the staff at John Day 

Fossil Beds National Monument; Pongo the Pogonodon illustrations: Michelle Ordway; Mural 

Artists: Roger Witter and Larry Felder; Pen and Ink Illustrations: Mark Hallett 

Designed by Discover Your Northwest

Discover Your Northwest promotes the discovery of Northwest public lands, enriches the 

experience of visitors, and builds community stewardship of these special places today and 

for generations to come.

discovernw.org

THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CARES FOR SPECIAL 

PLACES SAVED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SO 

THAT ALL MAY EXPERIENCE OUR HERITAGE.

For more paleontology and fossil fun, you 

can also visit these National Parks: 

Agate Fossil Beds National Monument • NE

Badlands National Park • SD

Bering Land Bridge National Preserve • AK

Dinosaur National Monument • CO, UT

Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument • CO

Fossil Butte National Monument • WY

Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument • ID

Petrified Forest National Park • AZ

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument

32651 Highway 19, Kimberly OR 97848

www.nps.gov/joda
To become a Junior Ranger you will: 

c Walk a trail.

c Attend a ranger led program, hike, or talk to a ranger.

c Watch “A Place of Discovery” in the Paleontology Center. 

c Complete as many activities from this Junior Ranger Activity 

 book as you can. 

You can work alone, with your friends, or with your family. When you 

are finished, show your work to a ranger at one of the visitor stations. 

Then you will receive your Junior Ranger badge and certificate.

Take Care of Our National Treasures!

During your stay in John Day Fossil Beds National Monument: 

Please do take pictures, take away rich and lasting memories, and take your 

time exploring the area. 

But please, don’t take rocks, flowers, or other natural items. This will ensure 

that our wild animals have the things they need to survive. Also, please do 

not touch any artifacts you find. 

Leaving things in place allows future visitors to enjoy the same experiences 

you’ve had.

How to Use this Book

What does a Junior Ranger do?

DISCOVER by using your senses. 

FIND CLUES to ancient habitats. 

IMAGINE the plants and animals. 

EXPLORE the trails, visitor center, and historic areas. 

OBSERVE, REFLECT and LEARN, so you can HELP PROTECT

this very special place. 

What does it mean to you?

The iconic National Park Service arrowhead emblem was created in 1949 by Aubrey Neasham. He 

used symbols to show us ideas and themes important to the National Parks. What do you think they 

are trying to say? Write it in the box!

SEQUOIA TREE ARROWHEAD

BISON (AMERICAN BUFFALO) MOUNTAIN

The National Park Service
II 

112TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1561 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the deductibility 

of charitable contributions to agricultural research organizations, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 

Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. THUNE, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. BENNET, 

Mr. WYDEN, Mr. COONS, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. COCHRAN, and Mr. INHOFE) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for the deductibility of charitable contributions to agricultural research organizations, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Charitable Agricultural 

5 Research Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1561 IS

1 SEC. 2. DEDUCTIBILITY OF CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS 

2 TO AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ORGANIZA3 TIONS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section 

5 170(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amend6 ed by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (vii), by striking 

7 the comma at the end of clause (viii) and inserting ‘‘, or’’, 

8 and by inserting after clause (viii) the following new 

9 clause: 

10 ‘‘(ix) an agricultural research organi11 zation directly engaged in the continuous 

12 active conduct of agricultural research (as 

13 defined in section 1404 of the Agricultural 

14 Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy 

15 Act of 1977) in conjunction with a land16 grant college or university (as defined in 

17 such section) or a non-land grant college of 

18 agriculture (as defined in such section), 

19 and during the calendar year in which the 

20 contribution is made such organization is 

21 committed to spend such contribution for 

22 such research before January 1 of the fifth 

23 calendar year which begins after the date 

24 such contribution is made,’’. 

25 (b) EXPENDITURES TO INFLUENCE LEGISLATION.— 

26 Paragraph (4) of section 501(h) of the Internal Revenue 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1561 IS

1 Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subparagraphs 

2 (E) and (F) as subparagraphs (F) and (G), respectively, 

3 and by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new 

4 subparagraph: 

5 ‘‘(E) section 170(b)(1)(A)(ix) (relating to 

6 agricultural research organizations),’’. 

7 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

8 this section shall apply to contributions made on and after 

9 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133235 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

MARY L. BARNES,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133235 

 COA: 272450 

WCAC: 05-000104 

STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

 Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 5, 2007 order 

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

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0416 

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. 

April 24, 2007 

 Clerk