alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023063EN.01004201.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2022 — Pierre Lannier v EUIPO — Pierre Lang Trading (PL)

(Case T-530/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing the superposed capital letters ‘P’ and ‘L’ - Earlier EU figurative mark representing a mirror image combination of the superposed capital letters ‘P’ and ‘L’ - Admissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Locus standi - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 63/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pierre Lannier (Ernolsheim-lès-Saverne, France) (represented by: N. Boespflug, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pierre Lang Trading GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: A. Ginzburg, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 June 2021 (Case R 1915/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Pierre Lannier to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Pierre Lannier to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---
Exhibit 16.1
Fashion Tech International, Inc.
Form 10-KSB






                          June 21, 2001


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C., 20549

Re:  Fashion Tech International, Inc.

We  were  previously the independent accountants for the  Company
and  on May 18, 2000, we reported on the financial statements  of
the Company for the years ended March 31, 2000 and 1999.

We  have  read  item  8  of  the  Form  10-KSB  of  Fashion  Tech
International,  Inc.  and we agree with the statements  contained
therein as they related to our firm.

Very truly yours,



HJ & Associates, LLC
Certified Public Accountants

                               E-1
<PAGE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.14
 EXECUTION COPY
 AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED Credit AGREEMENT
 AMENDMENT NO. 4 Amendment VIRCO MFG.
CORPORATION Borrower WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION Bank Credit
Agreement
   Section 1. Amendment to Section 1. 1(d) of the Credit Agreement.
 Original Term Loan Incremental Term Loan Term
Loan Term
Note
 Section 2. Amendment to Section 4. 4(a) of the Credit Agreement.
 Borrowing Base Reports
 2




---



##### 



Section 3. Amendments to Annex A to the Credit Agreement .
 Amendment No. 4
 Fourth Amendment Effective Date
  Line of Credit Termination Date
 Maximum Inventory Amount
 Maximum Line of Credit Amount
 Term Loan Termination Date
 Section 4. Restatement of Exhibits .
 Section 5. Consent to Amendments .
 Section 6. Representations and Warranties.
 Representations and Warranties in Credit Agreement
 3




---



##### 



Authority
 Enforceability of Obligations
 No Event of Default
 Section 7. Conditions to Effectiveness.
      4




---



##### 



5




---



##### 



Section 8. Admissions and Acknowledgments.
    Section 9. Reference to and Effect on Loan Documents.
     Section 10. Benefits of Amendment .
 Section 11. Interpretation .
 6




---



##### 



Section 12. Execution in Counterparts .
 Section 13. Severability .
 Section 14. Governing Law .
 Section 15. Expenses .
 Section 16. No Course of Dealing.
 Section 17. Arms Length Agreement.
 Section 18. Entire Agreement.
  7




---



##### 



VIRCO MFG. CORPORATION,
   as the BorrowerBy:Name:
    
    Robert E. DoseTitle:
    
    Vice President  Finance, Secretary and
TreasurerVIRCO, INC.,
   as a GuarantorBy:Name:
    
    Robert E. DoseTitle:
    
    Vice President  Finance, Secretary and
TreasurerVIRCO MGMT. CORPORATION,
   as a GuarantorBy:Name:
    
    Robert E. DoseTitle:
    
    Vice President  Finance, Secretary and
Treasurer
 Signature Page to Amendment No. 4
Virco Mfg. Corporation




---



##### 



WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONBy:Name:
    
    Art BrokxTitle:
    
    Senior Vice President
 Signature Page to Amendment No. 4
Virco Mfg. Corporation




---



##### 



RESTATED EXHIBIT A-1  FORM OF LINE OF CREDIT NOTE




---



##### 



RESTATED EXHIBIT A-2  FORM OF TERM NOTE
# C_2021252EN.01001701.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 23 April 2021 — Norra Stockholm Bygg AB v Per Nycander AB

(Case C-268/21)

(2021/C 252/22)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Norra Stockholm Bygg AB

Defendant: Per Nycander AB

Other party to the proceedings: Entral AB

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 6(3) and (4) of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) also impose a requirement on national procedural legislation relating to disclosure obligations? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 6(3) and (4) of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) also impose a requirement on national procedural legislation relating to disclosure obligations?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does the General Data Protection Regulation mean that regard must also be had to the interests of the data subjects when a decision on disclosure must be made which involves the processing of personal data? In such circumstances, does EU law establish any requirements concerning how, in detail, that decision should be made? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does the General Data Protection Regulation mean that regard must also be had to the interests of the data subjects when a decision on disclosure must be made which involves the processing of personal data? In such circumstances, does EU law establish any requirements concerning how, in detail, that decision should be made?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

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



     In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Golden  Enterprises,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the first quarter ended  September 1, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Mark W. McCutcheon, Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge:

     (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.

Dated:   October 11, 2006



/s/ Mark W. McCutcheon
----------------------
Mark W. McCutcheon
President and Chief Executive Officer

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


                                       23
#### McDonald vs. Smith.

Where a person swaps personal property, receiving in exchange therefor other property, known by the party with whom the trade is made to have been stolen, he may, on such property being taken from him by the rightful owner, rescind the bargain and maintain replevin for his o wn property.

Where the refusal of the circuit court to continue a cause on account of the absence of a material witness, operates as a denial of justice, its discretion is not exercised reasonably, and is subject to correction in this court.

*Appeal from Columbia Circuit Court.*

Hon. Len B. Green, Circuit Judge.

Carleton for the appellant.

The testimony of the absent witness was legal and competent — the defendant having procured the property in suit by fraud in the trade. *Paige*537; *Root vs. French,*13 *Wend.*570.

The overruling the appellant’s motion for a continuance not being a reasonable exercise of the discretion of this court, it is subject to revision and correction on appeal. *Hensley et al. vs. Tucker,*5 *Eng.*528.

Mr. Justice Fairchild

delivered the opinion of the court.

At the spring term, 1858, of the Columbia circuit court, the issues were made up in this case, it being an action of replevin for a mule, when the plaintiff filed an application for continuance, for the absence of a material witness. By that witness the plaintiff stated that he expected to prove that he had swapped the mule sued for, to the defendant, for a mare; that before this suit was begun, the mare had been proven and *461taken away from the plaintiff, as stolen property, and that he could prove such circumstances, as would tend to show that the defendant knew the mare to be stolen property when the trade was made; that upon the mare being proven from the plaintiff, he offered to return to the defendant the money given by him in addition to the mare for the mule, and demanded a recision of the bargain, which the defendant refused.

In all formal requisites, the affidavit complied with the statute. The court refused to grant a continuance, on the ground that the testimony was inadmissible. The plaintiff excepted to the ruling of the court, and refused to proceed in the trial of the cause. The court, at the instance of the defendant, ordered a jury to try the issues of the case, and there were verdict and judgment for the defendant — the plaintiff appealed, and the ground of appeal is, that the circuit court should not have overruled his application for a continuance.

The court was wrong in its view of the testimony expected to be proven by the absent witness. It would have entitled the plaintiff to judgment, and when the plaintiff could not prove the facts by any other witness, and had been diligent to procure his attendance, to refuse the continuance was a denial of justice to the plaintiff.

The discretion of the court was not exercised reasonably, and is subject to correction here. *Hensley vs. Tucker, 5 Eng.*528. The judgment is reversed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1223 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1223

   To extend the existing suspension of duty on power-driven weaving 
      machines for weaving fabrics more than 4.9 meters in width.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 14 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

  Mr. Breaux (for himself and Mr. Hollings) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the existing suspension of duty on power-driven weaving 
      machines for weaving fabrics more than 4.9 meters in width.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EXISTING SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON POWER-DRIVEN 
              WEAVING MACHINES FOR WEAVING FABRICS MORE THAN 4.9 
              METERS.

    Heading 9902.84.46 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States is amended by striking ``12/31/90'' and inserting ``12/31/94''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    (a) In General.--The amendment made by section 1 shall apply with 
respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, 
on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Retroactive Provision.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law, upon a request filed 
with the appropriate customs officer on or before the 180th day after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry, or withdrawal from 
warehouse for consumption, of goods described in heading 9902.84.46 of 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States that was made--
            (1) after December 31, 1990; and
            (2) before the 15th day after the date of the enactment of 
        this Act;
and with respect to which there would have been no duty or a lower duty 
if the amendment made by section 1 had applied to such entry or 
withdrawal, shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry or 
withdrawal had occurred on the date that is 15 days after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Hubert A. J. Whyte, President and Chief Executive Officer of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc., certify that:



1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc.;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.  The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release 33-8238;

(c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



June 08, 2004

/s/ Hubert A. J. Whyte



Hubert A. J. Whyte

President and Chief Executive Officer



#
<PAGE>

CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR PORTIONS OF THIS EXHIBIT. THE
CONFIDENTIAL PORTIONS HAVE BEEN REDACTED AND ARE DENOTED BY [*]. THE
CONFIDENTIAL PORTIONS HAVE BEEN SEPARATELY FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION.

               AN AMENDMENT TO THE LABEL SUPPLY AGREEMENT BETWEEN
                 OWENS-ILLINOIS LABELS, INC. AND USA DETERGENTS
                      WHICH WAS EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1997.

Owens-Illinois Labels, Inc. will:

     1.   Amend its current price list per attachment.

     2.   Award an additional [*] for all labels purchased as listed below. [*]

     3.   Attach the label supply agreement as an amendment to the
          Owens-Brockway Plastics Supply Agreement dated November 29, 1994.

USA Detergents in consideration of this amendment will:

     1.   Assure that all label types and sizes listed in the original Label
          Supply Agreement will be supplied by Owens-Illinois Labels, Inc.
          including any labels currently placed with competition.

     2.   Give a [*] commitment for Owens-Illinois Labels, Inc. to provide [*]
          of its powdered detergent scoop requirements. Proposal Attached.

Labels (all designs and sizes) subject to [*] performance price rebate:
      [*]

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                                  <C>
Owens-Illinois Labels Inc.                           USA Detergents Inc.

By  /s/ David L. Andrulonis                          By  /s/ Dan Parker
    ----------------------------------------             ---------------------------------------

Title  V.P. Sales and Business Unit Manager          Title   Vice President Materials Management
       -------------------------------------                 -----------------------------------
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350)



I, Wayne B. Fuquay, of Analytical Surveys, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2004 (the
Report) which this statement accompanies 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 Analytical Surveys, Inc.



Dated: December 10, 2004



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Wayne B. Fuquay                  
|Wayne B. Fuquay                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

                             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
                TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

                                     BY THE
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

         In connection with the Annual Report of LION, Inc., a Washington
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
each of Randall D. Miles, Chief Executive Officer, and Steve Thomson, Chief
Financial Officer, of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbaines-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350), that to his knowledge:

(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.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                     CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


/s/ RANDALL D. MILES                        /s/ STEVE THOMSON
------------------------------------        ------------------------------------
Randall D. Miles                            Steve Thomson

AUGUST 20, 2004                             AUGUST 20, 2004
------------------------------------        ------------------------------------
#### James R. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-90.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

May 28, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>   1




                                   EXHIBIT 23 

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


    The Board of Directors of Newhall Management Corporation
        and Partners of The Newhall Land and Farming Company:


    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
    on Form S-8 dated March 22, 1995 of our report dated January 17, 1996
    related to the consolidated balance sheets of The Newhall Land and Farming
    Company and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and 1994 and the related
    consolidated statements of income, partners' capital and cash flows for
    each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1995, which
    report appears in the December 31, 1995 annual report on Form 10-K of The
    Newhall Land and Farming Company.



    Los Angeles, California                              KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
    March 20, 1996
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 12

                      GTE NORTH INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARY
        Statement of the Consolidated Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
(Dollars in Millions)                                   Six Months Ended
                                                         June 30, 1999
                                                        ----------------
<S>                                                     <C>
Net earnings available for fixed charges:
  Income from continuing operations                         $ 295.6
  Add - Income taxes                                          180.1
      - Fixed charges                                          89.1
                                                            -------
Adjusted earnings                                           $ 564.8
                                                            =======
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                          $  80.4
  Portion of rent expense representing interest                 8.7
                                                            -------
Adjusted fixed charges                                      $  89.1
                                                            =======
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                             6.34
</TABLE>