alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014045EN.01002901.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Singer v OHIM — Cordia Magyarország (CORDIO)

(Case T-388/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark CORDIO - Earlier Community word mark CORDIA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 45/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Daniela Singer (Obertrubach, Germany) (represented by: B. Korom, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zrt (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: A. Nagy, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2012 (Case R 1842/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zrt and Ms Daniela Singer

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Daniela Singer to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by OHIM; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Daniela Singer to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by OHIM;

| 3. | Orders Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zrt to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zrt to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.

1

---
#### Asbury B. Porter and Samuel Brazelton, appellants, *vs.*Hosea Moffatt, appellee.

*Appealed from Henry.*

Where there is a dissolution of an injunction, and a demurer to the bill sustained, the sustaining of the demurrer should not have the effect of dismissing the bill, where it contains equity, although it may not be sworn to.

This was a bill in equity, in the District Court, for a new trial at law. The bill stated that Moffatt had brought his action of covenant in the court of law, against the complainants in the bill, who are the appellants in this court, and that the complainants not attending court, and having no attorney present, the said Moffatt causedhheir default to be entered in vacation on the clerk’s docket, and recovered judgment thereon at the subsequent term.

A writ of injunction was prayed and granted. The amendment put into said bill states that the reason complainants did not attend court, was that a compromise was pending, and it was understood and agreed that said suit should be drawn. The bill, on motion was dismissed for want of equity, and the complainants appealed.

At the July term of the Supreme Court, 1841, the order of the court below dismissing the bill was reversed, and the cause remanded for further hearing.

At the September term of the District Court, the complainants were permitted to withdraw that part of the prayer of their bill, which prays that the proceedings at law asked to be injoined be made part of the bill, &c.

The defendant filed a demurrer for the want of equity ir. the amended bill, and that the same was not sworn to which was sustained.— The defendant filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, because the amended bill was not sworn to, and because the complainants could have had a new trial at law, which was sustained, and the cpmplain-ants again appealed to the Supreme Court.

J. C. Haw,, for appellants.

G. W. Teas, for defendant,

*154Per Curiam,

Mason, Chief Justice.

In this case the defendant filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, and also a demurrer to the complainant’s bill. Both the motion and the demurrer were sustained. The dissolution of the injunction was correct; the amended bill which alone presents any grounds for equitable interference not having been sworn to. But the sustaining of the demurrer, the effect of which would be to dismiss the bill, was erroneous ; for although the bill was not sworn to, it appears to contain equity, and therefore ought not to have been dismissed. The case in fact is substantially the same as was presented in this very case at the term of this court held in July 1841, and must be reversed for the same reason. Decree set aside and case remanded to Henry county for further proceedings.
Certification Pursuant to

18  USC,  Section  1350,  as  Adopted  Pursuant  to  Sections 302 and 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002

In  connection  with  the  Annual  Report of Go Online Networks Corporation (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-KSB  for  the  fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 (the
"Report"),  as  filed  with  the Securities and Exchange Commission, on the date
hereof,  I, Joseph Naughton, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 USC 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  302  and  promulgated as 18 USC 1350 pursuant to
Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

The  Report  referenced  above  has  been  read and reviewed by the undersigned.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934.

The  Report referenced above does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to makes the statements
made,  in  light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading.

I  acknowledge  that the management of the Company is solely responsible for the
fair presentation in the financial statements of the financial position, results
of  operations  and  cash  flows  of  the  Company in conformity with accounting
principles  generally  accepted  in  the  United  States  of  America.

Based  upon  my  knowledge,  the  financial statements, and other such financial
information  included  in the report, fairly present the financial condition and
results  of  operations of the Company as of and for the year ended December 31,
2002.

Additionally, I acknowledge that the Company's Board of Directors and Management
are solely responsible for adopting sound accounting practices, establishing and
maintaining a system of internal control and preventing and detecting fraud. The
Company's  system  of  internal  accounting control is designed to assure, among
other  items, that 1) recorded transactions are valid; 2) valid transactions are
recorded;  and  )  transactions  are  recorded  in the proper period in a timely
manner  to  produce  financial  statements  which  present  fairly the financial
condition,  results  of  operations  and  cash  flows  of  the  Company  for the
respective  periods  being  presented.


                                   /s/ Joseph M. Naughton
                                   Joseph  M.  Naughton
                                   Chief  Executive  Officer
                                   Chief  Financial  Officer
# C_2014282EN.01002701.xml

| 25.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2014 — Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung v OHIM — Thermofilm Australia (HEATSTRIP)

(Case T-184/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark HEATSTRIP - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009))

2014/C 282/34

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung GmbH (Sauerlach b. München, Germany) (represented by: H. Pannen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Thermofilm Australia Pty Ltd (Melbourne, Australia) (represented by: J. Kroher and K. Bach, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 January 2012 (Case R 1956/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Thermofilm Australia Pty Ltd and Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Thermofilm Australia Pty Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Thermofilm Australia Pty Ltd.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.

1

---
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Willie J. Adams, Petitioner, and Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Erie County,

March 17, 1966.

*Miles, Cochrane, Orosse, Rossetti £ Lord (J. Couper Lord*of counsel), for respondent. *Lutwack, Feldman £ Burke (David P. Feldman*of counsel), for petitioner.

Matthew J. Jasen, J.

Respondent moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 7503 directing immediate trial of the issue of whether the petitioner-claimant filed with the respondent a timely notice of claim and staying the arbitration demanded until this issue is decided.

It is proposed by respondent that the issue to be determined is: “ Whether the petitioner-claimant has filed with the MVAIC within 90 days after the accident of September 20,1964, a statement under oath that the petitioner-claimant has a cause or causes of action arising out of such accident for damages against such person or persons as alleged and setting forth the facts in support thereof.”

However, the petitioner-claimant contends that the issue as proposed is too narrow and requests it be expanded to read as follows: “Whether the petitioner-claimant has filed with MVAIC within 90 days after the accident of September 20,1964, *474or as soon, thereafter as practicable, a statement under oath that the petitioner-claimant has a cause or causes of action arising out of such accident for damages against such person or persons as alleged and setting forth facts in support thereof.”

The requirement of the notice in the New York Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation endorsement must be interpreted to mean that the notice of claim must be filed within a reasonable time. *(Matter of Stroud [MV AIC],*13 A D 2d 757.)

Timely notice can only be given if the party upon whom the burden is placed has knowledge of facts which necessitate giving the notice. *(Lauritano*v. *American Fid. Fire Ins. Co.,*3 A D 2d 564, affd. 4 N Y 2d 1028; *Matter of MV AIC [Brown],*15 A D 2d 578.)

Certainly, the question of whether the notice was filed within a reasonable time should be determined by factual evidence of the claimant’s diligence in complying with the pertinent policy provisions.

Application to stay arbitration is granted pending the trial of the issue presented, as set forth by the petitioner-claimant.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Learn to make an emergency plan with Philadelphia Office of Emergency Management

By DLA Troop Support Public Affairs

                PHILADELPHIA  –              
Employees at the Defense Logistics Agency in Philadelphia can learn how to make and practice your emergency plan with the Philadelphia Office of Emergency Management Sept. 6 at 11:30 a.m. in the Bldg. cafeteria. 

Lynn Fisher from the Philadelphia OEM will talk about emergency planning as part of the first National Preparedness Month event at the Naval Support Activity Philadelphia. 

You can learn more about making an emergency plan at the National Preparedness Month website.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

## Related Stories

National Preparedness Month: Prepare now before disaster strikes

National Preparedness Monthemergency planPhiladelphia OEMReady.gov
<PAGE>

Exhibit (4)(11)

                             AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
                                SERIES F WARRANT
                                       OF
                        MARKETING WORLDWIDE CORPORATION

This Amendment No. 1 (this "Amendment"), dated as of September 27, 2007, by and
among Marketing Worldwide Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
and Vision Opportunity Master Fund, Ltd. (the "Purchaser") hereby amends the
Series F Warrant (No. W-F-07-01) to purchase shares of Common Stock of the
Company dated April 23, 2007 and issued to the Purchaser (the "Warrant"). Terms
used in this Amendment without definition shall have the meanings given them in
the Warrant.

WHEREAS, the Company and the Purchaser entered into the Series A Convertible
Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement (the "Agreement") dated as of April 23, 2007
wherein the Purchaser was issued the Warrant;

WHEREAS, the Company and the Purchaser now desire to amend the Warrant as more
fully set forth herein; and

WHEREAS, this Amendment will be effective when it is executed by the Company.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the agreements hereinafter
set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by the each of the parties, the
parties hereby amend the Warrant as follows:

1. Section 9: Definitions. The definition of "Warrant Price" in Section 9 is
hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: "Warrant Price"
initially means $0.01, as such price may be adjusted from time to time as shall
result from the adjustments specified in this Warrant, including Section 4
hereto.

2. Full Force and Effect. Except to the extent the Warrant is modified by this
Amendment, the other terms and provisions of the Warrant shall remain unmodified
and in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 1 to the
Series F Warrant as of the date first above written.

The Company:

MARKETING WORLDWIDE CORPORATION


By: /s/ MICHAEL WINZKOWSKI
    --------------------------------
    Name:  Michael Winzkowski
    Title: President & CEO


ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO:
VISION OPPORTUNITY MASTER FUND, LTD.


By: /s/ ADAM BENOWITZ
    --------------------------------
    Name:  Adam Benowitz
    Title: Director
# C_2016027EN.01003001.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — Cuallado Martorell v Commission

(Case T-506/12 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Recruitment - Open competition to draw up a reserve list of lawyer-linguists with Spanish as their main language - Decision of the jury confirming failure to pass the written tests and non-admittance to the oral test - Article 90(2) of the Statute - Admissibility of the action at first instance - Duty to state reasons - Refusal to send the marked written tests to the appellant - Access to documents))

(2016/C 027/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Eva Cuallado Martorell (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: C. Pinto Cañón, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and G. Gattinara, acting as agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Appeal Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 18 September 2012 in Cuallado Martorell v Commission (F-96/09, ECRFP, EU:F:2012:129) and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Cuallado Martorell

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Appeal Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 18 September 2012 in Cuallado Martorell v Commission (F-96/09, ECRFP, EU:F:2012:129) inasmuch as it declares the action to be inadmissible in seeking the annulment of the decision refusing admission to the oral test and, consequently, the reserve list; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Appeal Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 18 September 2012 in Cuallado Martorell v Commission (F-96/09, ECRFP, EU:F:2012:129) inasmuch as it declares the action to be inadmissible in seeking the annulment of the decision refusing admission to the oral test and, consequently, the reserve list;

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

2.

Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

| 3. | Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

| 4. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.

1

---
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 24, 2011

h0516 

# Order

May 24, 2011

142641

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142641 COA: 292906 Jackson CC: 08-004610-FH ROBERT QUAR LES VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the December 28, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 32.1

  Certification by the Principal Executive Officer and Chief Financial
  Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002


  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of
  Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P., a limited partnership organized
  under the laws of the State of Delaware (the "Partnership"), does
  hereby certify that, to the best of such officer's knowledge:

     1.   The accompanying Quarterly Report of the Partnership on Form
	  10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report")
	  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
	  15(d) 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
          operations of the Partnership.



                                          /s/ E.J. Holm
                                          __________________________
                                          E. J. Holm
                                          President
                                          November 14, 2003



                                          /s/ Paul Bailey
                                          ___________________________
                                          Paul Bailey
                                          Vice President and Chief
                                          Financial Officer
                                          November 14, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. and will be
retained by Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2014015EN.01001601.xml

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/16

---

Order of the General Court of 18 November 2013 — Trabelsi v Council

(Case T-162/12) (1)

1

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Extension of asset-freezing - Annulment of initial asset-freezing measures - No need to adjudicate)

2014/C 15/22

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mohamed Trabelsi (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Tekari, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2012/50/CFSP of 27 January 2012 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2012 L 27, p. 11), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The Council of the European Union is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council of the European Union is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.

1

---