alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012200EN.01001802.xml

| 7.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/18

---

Action brought on 26 April 2012 — Verus v OHIM — Maquet (LUCEA LED)

(Case T-186/12)

2012/C 200/38

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Verus Eood (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: S. Vykydal, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maquet SAS (Ardon, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 February 2012 in Case R 67/2011-4 and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 February 2012 in Case R 67/2011-4 and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs before the Court and the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs before the Court and the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Maquet SAS

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘LUCEA LED’ for goods in Class 10

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘LUCEO’ for goods in Classes 10, 12 and 28

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was allowed and the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

| — | infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009, |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009,

| — | infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009, |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009,

| — | infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009,

| — | infringement of Rule 6(4) of implementing Regulation (EC) 2868/95 in conjunction with decision No EX-05-5 of the President of OHIM, |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Rule 6(4) of implementing Regulation (EC) 2868/95 in conjunction with decision No EX-05-5 of the President of OHIM,

| — | infringement of Article 42 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 42 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Case No. 8,722.

#### McCORMICK v. KETCHUM.

[See Case No. 8,719.]
PH4NTCM 1 vtSUlN• 

"" .t ... ro.ol £1) 

·-

--- ... :-· 

-~--

·--· --· ... 

--· 

·~:..- ·=:...-:.. =- : ·--·-'- ·-· -· . ___ ._ 

M- o ··--" _ .. _' 

-· =- . : 

---· ·-

. . 

• ' . ::::--

:. 

·--· "-.. ._ ·-· ... -.... ; -·-

~fen Mo 

~· 

.... - , 

·-

:::- ! ·-· .. ·-·-.. :=- l 

·-· 

·---

·-

.. 

..... --_ 

--- ·-

... _, 

·-· 

--

.. ,_ .. 

;

~­

- - Qhtae«m·b"';~ - - !!.\w.r1"i:.~ 

--

-. 

= ---: ===: -==--: -" ·-=-. --· ... ·-- --· ---. . ·-·--. ::....-.... -- .. _ ... _ • 

-=- ··-·-. : . . 

'!!e!'"' e.:, 

T 

·-·-

·-. ·-

·-

·-

·-·-- ·-

·-

·-

---

·-

·-· i>. I · • '!" , 

-

=::.·-·-- =--

-- m . -

~= . &::~== 

---·- ~-= 

. 

-

--

=--

=

-· --= =:::, 

~- ... - I 

·- ~ ....... 

••• [] ·- ·- T· " ·-

' .. .. ...-·-

~-­ a;::. ii::- ii\if:=W 

·--

_Xi_...:a::Jiii_ ... , ___ - '"'-' - "'4 .. 

- .. ~ 

·-- = ......... __ . __ - ·r= -

·-... -
I ! 

I I 

.. ,_, ·-... -

' I 

··--· ·-... -

ii:~w'iii ,......L:2l roo m.:'!l -· ~ ·--- .. -..::. .. . ---

~=--~--- 'i!f.l -· ··--.. 

--

~'="11:·- .. -~ ..... ·=---

It m- -··-· 
~ 

~ -

I 

• 

~· i;)] .. 

- ---

.:.:c..--

~.;·~· ---- ... · 

~-L---... -

a. -- -;-;-';' --. .·...:..: 

I • 

--- - · 

- - ~ 

.. -

= ·-

r 

=--

=- --
--- -··---

Sr"M"i'iZii w&, 

•
Case No. 8,718.

#### McCORMICK v. BUCKNER et al.

[2 Wkly. Notes Cas. 480.]

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

June 16, 1875.

Bill to Restrain Sheriff’s Sale — Act of Bankruptcy.

This was a bill in equity by Sharpe’s as-signee to set aside executions at the suit of Buckner, and to restrain the sheriff [Elliott] from making sales, on the ground that Buckner had within the meaning of the bankrupt act [of 1S07 (14 Stat. 517)] procured Sharpe’s property to be taken on legal process, etc. The executions were issued upon judgments entered by confession on warrants of attorney accompanying bonds, the bonds neing given under the following circumstances: Sharpe, the bankrupt, being unable to go on for want of capital, got loans of money from Buckner from time to time, for which he gave the bonds and warrants in question, which, with interest and extra interest of several years, amounted to the sum for which the executions issued. When the first of the loans was made, an agreement was executed between Sharpe and his own son of the one part and Buckner’s son of the other part, by which Sharpe agreed to employ the two sons in his factory, paying them each a fixed salary, and as additional compensation giving each a certain percentage of .the net profits. This agreement was renewed from year to year, and was in operation when the execution was ’ssued. Buckner’s son was bookkeeper, and it was shown that balance sheets had been given from time to time by the'son to the father, which showed Sharpe’s financial condition.

E. Spencer Miller, for plaintiff,

relied on these facts to distinguish the case from those cited by the defendant, arguing that Sharpe had put himself in Buckner’s power by owing him all the time more than he was worth, and by giving a bond and warrant by which Buckner might in a moment break him up, and also that in so doing he enabled Buckner, through his son, to inform himself at any time of the condition of the business.

T. Hart, Jr., for defendants,

cited: Wilson v. City Bank of St. Paul [17 Wall. (84 U. K) 473]; Tiffany v. Boatmen’s Savings Ins. Co. [18 Wall. (85 U. S.) 375]; In re King [Case No. 7,783]; Sleek v. Turner, 10 N. B. R. 580; Piper v. Baldy [Case No. 11,170]; Clark v. Iselin [21 Wall. (SS U. S.) 360].

THE COURT

held that the ease of Clark v. Iselin ruled this, and, the testimonv relied on not warranting a different decision, bill dismissed with costs.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-19-00109-CV 

________________________

IN RE TY DAVIS REECE, RELATOR 

 

 

Original Proceeding 

Arising From Proceedings Before the 100th District Court 

Hall County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 3597; Honorable Stuart M. Messer, Presiding 

 

April 9, 2019 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

By this original proceeding, Relator, Ty Davis Reece, an inmate proceeding pro 

se, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Hall County District Clerk to transmit a copy 

of his application for a writ of habeas corpus to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 

pursuant to article 11.07, section 3 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. We dismiss 

this proceeding for want of jurisdiction.
2

This court has the authority to issue writs of mandamus against a judge of a district 

or county court in our district and all writs necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. TEX.

GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b) (West Supp. 2018). In order for a district clerk to fall within 

our jurisdictional reach, it must be established that the issuance of the writ of mandamus 

is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692-93 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). Relator does not have an appeal pending in 

this court nor has he demonstrated that the exercise of our mandamus authority against 

the Hall County District Clerk is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Consequently, we 

have no authority to issue a writ of mandamus against the Hall County District Clerk.

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Per Curiam
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Alfonso Hernandez a/k/a * From the 35th District Court

Alfonso Darden, of Brown County,

 Trial Court No. CR22627.

Vs. No. 11-14-00324-CR * November 30, 2016

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that 

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
No. 48883.

#### Protests 32888-K, etc., of Barrett & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2131 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2131

    To reauthorize the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area, the 
 Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area, and the Delaware and Lehigh 
                      National Heritage Corridor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 27, 2012

   Mr. Casey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To reauthorize the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area, the 
 Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area, and the Delaware and Lehigh 
                      National Heritage Corridor.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS AND CORRIDOR.

    (a) Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area.--Section 408 of the 
Steel Industry American Heritage Area Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333; 
110 Stat. 4256) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2012'' and 
inserting ``September 30, 2022''.
    (b) Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area.--Section 108 of the 
Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-
278; 114 Stat. 818) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2012'' and 
inserting ``September 30, 2022''.
    (c) Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor.--Section 12 of 
the Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal National Heritage Corridor Act 
of 1988 (Public Law 100-692; 102 Stat. 4558; 112 Stat. 3260; 123 Stat. 
1293) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``2012'' and 
        inserting ``2022''; and
            (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``the date that is 5 
        years after the date of enactment of this subsection'' and 
        inserting ``September 30, 2022''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection
with the Annual Report of International Smart Sourcing, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, David Hale, Chairman, President (Principal Executive
Officer) and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss 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 as of and for the period   covered by the Report.

|                | /s/ David Hale                                                                                                      
|--------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                |                                                                                                                     
|                | David Hale                                                                                                          
|                | Chairman of the Board of   Directors,   President (Principal Executive Officer) and   Acting Chief Financial Officer
|                |                                                                                                                     
|August 25, 2006 |
# C_2013344EN.01005501.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/55

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2013 — Cartoon Network v OHIM — Boomerang TV (BOOMERANG)

(Case T-285/12) (1)

1

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

2013/C 344/97

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Cartoon Network, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: I. Starr, Solicitor)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Boomerang TV, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2012 (Case R 699/2011-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Boomerang TV, SA and The Cartoon Network, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders The Cartoon Network, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders The Cartoon Network, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.

1

---
October 23, 1941

No. 46511.

#### Protests 6753-K, etc., of Brabender Corp. et al.

C. D. 491. Motion of Government for rehearing granted.
No. 49474.

#### Protest 47465-K of F. W. Woolworth Co. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the figures in question are in chief value of lead, not plated, similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Woolworth*(28 C. C. P. A. 196, C. A. D. 145), which record was incorporated herein, the claim that they are dutiable at 3 cents per pound, but not less than 22)4 nor more than 45 percent ad valorem, under paragraph 397 as amended by the United Kingdom Trade Agreement, was sustained.
# C_2012157EN.01001002.xml

| 2.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/10

---

Action brought on 26 March 2012 — Geipel v OHIM — Reeh (BEST BODY NUTRITION)

(Case T-138/12)

2012/C 157/18

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Yves Geipel (Auerbach, Germany) (represented by: J. Sachs, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jörg Reeh (Buxtehude, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2012 and reject the opposition of 24 July 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2012 and reject the opposition of 24 July 2009;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Yves Geipel

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘BEST BODY NUTRITION’ (international registration No W 982 101, naming the European Union) for goods in classes 25, 28, 29, 30 and 32.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Jörg Reeh.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark No 4 020 161‘BEST4BODY’ for goods in class 25.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: There is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

Pleas in law:

---
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document







 



 
 

Exhibit 10.3.16.1    
    


[WESTAFF
LOGO] 


August 2,
2007 


Dawn
M Jaffray



Dear
Dawn: 


This
letter is to confirm our verbal offer of employment to you as the Chief Financial Officer and SVP in Westaff's Corporate Office in Walnut Creek, California, reporting directly to Mike Willis,
President and CEO. Your official start date will be Monday, August 6, 2007, with a starting salary of $290,000.00 per year plus up to a 50% bonus of your base salary. Your bonus will be based
on company performance metrics. You will also be eligible to participate in the Company's Stock Incentive Plan at the Tier 1 level as you and I discussed yesterday. 


We
will provide 60 days of temporary housing at the Summerfield Suites Hotel in Pleasant Hill. We will also provide our Executive Relocation Package which includes: packing, loading and
transport of your household goods, unloading, unpacking and removal of the boxes not to exceed $12,000. We will also transport one vehicle for you. 


*You
will be eligible for 4 weeks of vacation per year based upon the standard vacation accrual of the company's vacation policy. Should you be terminated from the company within your first
12 months of employment, at no fault of you own, you will receive 6 months of base pay as severance pay. *S.T. rel. 60 days
housing + air-travel to from P/S. during 60 day period. DJ


Westaff
engages in fair competition. We have no interest in any confidential information or trade secrets that belong to your former employers. We ask that you not share such information and secrets
with us. 


Dawn,
we look forward to your formal acceptance of this offer by signing and returning a copy of this letter to me via fax at (925) 944-6607. We believe that you will enjoy your
association with Westaff and that you will be a significant contributor to our team. Meanwhile, if you have any questions, please contact me at (925) 930-5350. 



	Sincerely,	 	 	 
	

Jeff Elias

Senior Vice President, Human Resource	

 
	

ACCEPTED	

/s/  DAWN JAFFRAY      
 Dawn M Jaffray	
 	

8-2-2007
 Date













QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.3.16.1
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00516-CV

Cody Morrow, Appellant

v.

City of Killeen, Appellee

FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY 

NO. 306798, THE HONORABLE JACK WELDON JONES, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s brief was originally due on November 27, 2023. On the Court’s own 

motion, the deadline was extended to December 27, 2023 after appellant’s counsel withdrew. 

On February 8, 2024, this Court sent a notice to appellant informing him that his brief was 

overdue and that a failure to file a satisfactory response by February 20, 2024, would result in the 

dismissal of this appeal for want of prosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a brief or a

motion for extension of time. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

__________________________________________

Rosa Lopez Theofanis, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: March 15, 2024
No. 39205.

#### Protest 944990-G of Mitsui & Co., Ltd. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

On the record presented the protest was sustained as to certain items.
No. 45327.

#### Protests 588206-G, etc., of L. H. Baillie et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
A97A2488.

#### GARRETT v. THE STATE.

(512 SE2d 315)

Blackburn, Judge.

Katina Garrett appeals her conviction of no proof of insurance, driving under the influence of alcohol, failure to yield the right of way, and violation of child restraint in the State Court of Troup County. This is the second appearance of this case before us. We previously held in *Garrett v. State,*230 Ga. App. 97 (495 SE2d 579) (1998) that the Uniform Traffic Citation (UTC) included in the record was sufficient to establish venue beyond a reasonable doubt. After granting certiorari, the Supreme Court remanded this case for our consideration in light of *Graves v. State,*269 Ga. 772 (504 SE2d 679) (1998), which held that “a Uniform Traffic Citation upon which a . . . prosecution is based ... is not evidence and cannot provide the factual predicate necessary to establish venue.”

In this case, Garrett properly challenged venue when she pled not guilty, and the State failed to introduce any evidence that venue was proper in Troup County, other than the UTC. As such, the State failed to carry its burden on the essential element of venue, and the *386evidence was insufficient to prove Garrett’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Decided February 10, 1999.

*Patterson & Patterson, Jackie G. Patterson, Yasma Patterson,*for appellant.

*Louis J. Kirby, Solicitor, Marla P. Chambless, Assistant Solicitor,*for appellee.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Johnson, C. J., and Pope, P. J., concur.*