alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013009EN.01003302.xml

| 12.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/33

---

Appeal brought on 19 November 2012 by TeamBank AG Nürnberg against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 19 September 2012 in Case T-220/11 TeamBank AG Nürnberg v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-524/12 P)

2013/C 9/56

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (represented by: D. Terheggen, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-220/11 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-220/11 in its entirety;

| — | grant in full the applications made at first instance in its application of 18 April 2011 before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

grant in full the applications made at first instance in its application of 18 April 2011 before the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The General Court misapplied Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) in finding there to be a likelihood of confusion between ‘f@ir Credit’ and ‘FERCREDIT’.

1

Contrary to the view taken by the General Court, there is a clear visual difference in the overall impressions of the two signs. Furthermore, account needs to be taken of the fact that the signs in dispute relate to financial services, which usually have significant financial consequences for their users. Thus, it is to be assumed that the average consumer will examine these signs particularly carefully and are highly likely to recognise the differences between them. However, the General Court did not adequately examine that circumstance.

On a correct assessment of that circumstance and the differences in the overall impression of both signs there are no relevant similarities between the signs.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2013233EN.01000802.xml

| 10.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 233/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 233/8

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2013 — Airbus v OHIM (NEO)

(Case T-236/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark NEO - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Examination as to the merits conditional on the admissibility of the action - Articles 59 and 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion - Article 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 233/14

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Airbus SAS (France) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2012 (Case R 1387/2011-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign NEO as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 23 February 2012 (Case R 1387/2011-1) as regards the services in Class 39 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 23 February 2012 (Case R 1387/2011-1) as regards the services in Class 39 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

1

---
Case No. 14,661.

#### UNITED STATES v. BROWN.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 607.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1835.

Witness — Restoration of Competency — Serving *out*Sentence.

Serving out the term of imprisonment in the penitentiary for felony, does not restore the party to his competency as a witness.

Indictment [against John Brown, a mulatto] for highway robbery of George Milburne..

The attorney for the United States offered' to examine, as a witness for the United *1248States, one Sandy Spriggs, a free mulatto " ■who had been convicted of larceny, and suffered his term of imprisonment and labor in the penitentiary of this district.

NOTE. See, also, the Maryland net of 1793, c. 57, § 15, by which the service and labor, imposed as a punishment under that act, have the effect of a pardon; from which special enactment it is to be inferred that without it, the punishment would not operate as a pardon.

The prisoner’s counsel objected that the witness was incompetent because convicted of an infamous offence.

The attorney for the United States, contended that the suffering of his punishment restored his competency; like burning in the hand, and transportation which is a substitute for the burning, and which by the statute of 19 Geo. III. and 4 Geo. I. c. 11, is to have the same effect. He also cited 4 Starkie, Ev. 717; 1 Chit. G01, 602; and 2 Russ. 694, S95.

THE COIÍRT,'

however (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, dissenting),

sustained the objection and rejected the witness; being of opinion that the execution of the sentence, without any ■ provision by statute to that effect, ■did not restore his competency.

The prisoner was acquitted.

The witness, Sandy Spriggs, was after-wards convicted of the same robbery, and sentenced to the penitentiary for four years only; he having probably prevented the other robbers from killing Milburne.
**EXHIBIT
      13.1**





**WRITTEN
      STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





In
      connection with the annual report of NB Finance, Ltd. (the “Company”), for the
      period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on Form 20-F on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Martin Ouellet,
      President of the Company, certify 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/
              Martin OuelletMartin
                Ouellet
              President Dated:  June
      29,
      2007




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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1681 

To assure that Congress acts on the budget resolution. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 11, 2011 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Ms. AYOTTE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To assure that Congress acts on the budget resolution. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON A BUDGET RESO4 LUTION. 

5 Section 303 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 

6 is amended by— 

7 (1) striking subsection (a) and inserting the fol8 lowing: ‘‘After April 15 and unless the concurrent 

9 resolution on the budget for a fiscal year has been 

10 adopted for the budget year, it shall not be in order 

11 in the House of Representatives or the Senate to 

12 consider any bill or joint resolution, amendment or 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1681 IS

1 motion thereto, or conference report thereon. This 

2 section may be waived or suspended for an emer3 gency by a vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly 

4 chosen and sworn.’’; 

5 (2) striking subsections (b) and (c); and 

6 (3) by striking its section heading and inserting 

7 the following new section heading: ‘‘CONSIDERATION

8 OF LEGISLATION BEFORE BUDGET IS ADOPTED’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1287 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1287

To treat gold and silver coins used as legal tender in the same manner 
            as United States currency for taxation purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 28, 2011

    Mr. DeMint (for himself, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Paul) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To treat gold and silver coins used as legal tender in the same manner 
            as United States currency for taxation purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Sound Money Promotion Act''.

SEC. 2. GOLD AND SILVER COINS THAT ARE LEGAL TENDER NOT SUBJECT TO 
              TAXATION.

    (a) In General.--Gold and silver coins declared legal tender by the 
Federal Government or any State government shall not be subject to 
taxation.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1(h)(5) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(as defined in section 408(m) without 
        regard to paragraph (3) thereof)'' in subparagraph (A), and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Collectible.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
                the term `collectible' has the meaning given such term 
                by section 408(m), determined without regard to 
                subparagraphs (A)(iii), (A)(iv), and (B).''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The provisions of, and amendments made by, 
this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
Before the First Division,

October 15, 1941.

No. 46434.

#### Protests 23669-K, etc. of Harold Mayer et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstracts 45141 and 47154 (old series) and *Shallus*v. *United States*(13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 87, T. D. 40937) the claim at 30 percent under paragraph 80 was sustained.
# C_2013038EN.01003301.xml

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/33

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2012 — Ghigna v Commission

(Case F-27/12) (1)

1

2013/C 38/64

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012, p. 22.

1

---
No. 40452.

#### Protests 328819-G, etc., of Saks & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the whisky barrels, buckets, and atomizers are chiefly used in the household for utilitarian purposes. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained. *United States*
      *546v. *Friedlaender*(21 C. C. P. A. 103, T. D. 46445), *Dow*v. *United States*(id. 282, T. D. 46816), and *Rice*v. *United States*(T. D. 49373) cited.
Before the Second Division,

June 14, 1961

No. 65808.

#### The Huffman Manufacturing Company *v.*United States,

protests 315353-K, 59/27141, and 60/23988 (Portland, Oreg.).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 96-7910.

#### Hall *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
**Exhibit 31.2**CertificationsI, Gary Allhusen, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB/A-2 for the six months ended June 30, 2006, of Caneum, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting;5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date:October 2, 2007
October 10, 1941

No. 46433.

#### Protest 37268-K of Saji Trading Co., Ltd.

Abstract 46176. Application by plaintiff for rehearing denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.8 AMENDMENT TO
CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS AMENDMENT TO CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK
PURCHASE AGREEMENT (this Amendment Agreement) is
made and entered into as of September 1, 2004, between
O2 Diesel Corporation, a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Washington (the Company), and Armadillo
Investments, Plc. (the Purchaser). Whereas, the Company and the Purchaser entered into a
Convertible Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement dated March
29, 2004 (the SPA), under which the Company sold to
Purchaser 750,000 shares of its Series B 0% Convertible
Preferred Stock, par value $0.0001 per share (the Series
B Preferred Stock). The Series B Preferred Stock has the rights, preferences and privileges set
forth in the
Certificate of Designation filed with the Delaware Secretary
of State on March 12, 2002 (the Certificate). Whereas, the Company and Purchaser desire to amend
the SPA and the Certificate. Now,
therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the parties
hereto agree as
follows: 1. Lock Up. A new section 4.14 is hereby added to the
SPA, to read, in its entirety, as follows: 4.14 Lockup. Purchaser agress not to sell,
transfer or assign all or any part of the Series B
Preferred Stock, or to convert the Series B Preferred Stock
as provided in the Certificate, for a period of two (2)
years following the Closing Date (as defined in the SPA),
without the express written consent of the Company, which
may be withheld for any reason. 2. Amendment to Certificate. The Certificate shall be
amended to redefine the term Floating Conversion Price as provided in the
Articles of Amendment attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Company shall file the Articles
of Amendment with the Washington Secretary promptly after the execution of this
Amendment Agreement and furnish proof of filing to Purchaser. 3. General. Except as herein provided, the SPA and the Certificate shall continue in full force and effect. [Signatures on following page] 1




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
duly executed as of the date first indicated above. Company:O2 Diesel CorporationBy:
    
    /s/ ALAN RAEName: ALAN RAETitle: CEOPurchaser:Armadillo Investments, Plc.By:
    
    /s/ HARRY PEARLName: HARRY PEARLTitle: Chairman
 2
Exhibit No. 32.2
Form 10-QSB
The Quantum Group, Inc.
File No. 000-31727



    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 THE QUANTUM GROUP, INC. (THE
"COMPANY") ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDING APRIL 30, 2004 AS FILED WITH THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ON THE DATE HEREOF (THE "REPORT"), I, NOEL J.
GUILLAMA, 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.



Date: June 21, 2004                                  By: /S/ Noel J. Guillama
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Noel J. Guillama
                                                         Chief Executive Officer





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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 15 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 15

 To prohibit the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions in the United 
  States until China, India, and Russia implement similar reductions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions in the United 
  States until China, India, and Russia implement similar reductions.

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

SECTION 1. CARBON DIOXIDE REDUCTIONS IN CHINA, INDIA, AND RUSSIA.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency or the head of any other Federal 
agency shall not regulate carbon dioxide emissions until the date on 
which the Secretary of Commerce certifies in writing that each of the 
People's Republic of China, the Republic of India, and Russia have 
initiated measures that require carbon dioxide emission reductions that 
are substantially similar to the carbon dioxide emission reductions 
proposed for the United States.
                                 <all>
```
34244.

#### HOUGH v. JOHNSON.

Bowles, Justice.

The parties to this action, formerly husband and wife, were divorced by court order on December 31,1975. On February 5,1976, the appellee-husband filed a motion *699for property settlement and for custody of the parties’ minor child. The court awarded custody of the child to appellee, but did not rule on the question of a property settlement.

Argued November 20, 1978

Decided December 5, 1978.

*Wayne F. Browning, Jr.,*for appellant.

*I. J. Parkerson, William S. Shulfer,*for appellee.

On February 23, 1978, the appellant-wife filed a complaint in equity to set aside the custody award, alleging that the judgment was fraudulently obtained. The appellee moved pursuant to Code Ann § 81A-112 (e) for a more definite statement as to the fraud issue.

Appellant amended her complaint, but failed to set forth the specific acts of fraud which would authorize a setting aside of the custody award. Appellee moved to dismiss the appellant’s complaint, as amended, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Appellant’s complaint was dismissed by order of the trial court. We affirm.

Code Ann § 81A-109 (b) requires that, "In all averments of fraud, or mistake, the circumstance constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.” Appellant, in her complaint as amended, alleged no facts which constituted fraud so as to render the custody award void. Therefore, her complaint was properly dismissed. *Bloodworth v. Bloodworth,*240 Ga. 614 (241 SE2d 827) (1978). See also *Cochran v. McCollum,*233 Ga. 104 (210 SE2d 13) (1974).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
No. 54947.

#### Andrew Fisher Cycle Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 153328-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
No. 53274.

#### D. Hecht & Company *v.*United States,

protest 58951-K (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoice should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on the entry. The protest was sustained to this extent.