alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023104EN.01003202.xml

| 20.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/32

---

Order of the General Court of 19 January 2023 — Jeronimo Martins Polska v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (Vitalsss plus)

(Case T-325/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)

(2023/C 104/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jeronimo Martins Polska S.A. (Kostrzyn, Poland) (represented by: E. Jaroszyńska-Kozłowska and R. Skubisz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aldi Einkauf SE & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, C. Fürsen, M. Minkner and A. Starcke, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 April 2021(Cases R 503/2020-1 and R 647/2020-1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Jeronimo Martins Polska S.A. shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Jeronimo Martins Polska S.A. shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

| 3. | Aldi Einkauf SE & Co. OHG shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Aldi Einkauf SE & Co. OHG shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 297, 26.7.2021.

---
# C_2023083EN.01002202.xml

| 6.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2023 — Dorsum v EUIPO — id Quantique (Clavis)

(Case T-758/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Clavis - Earlier EU word mark CLAVIS - Failure to identify the earlier trade mark in the notice of opposition - Conditions for admissibility of the opposition)

(2023/C 83/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dorsum Informatikai Fejlesztő és Szolgáltató Zrt. (Budapest, Hungary), (represented by: G. Hajdu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Stoyanova-Valchanova and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: id Quantique SA (Carouge, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks alteration or annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 September 2021 (Case R 189/2021-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dorsum Informatikai Fejlesztő és Szolgáltató Zrt. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dorsum Informatikai Fejlesztő és Szolgáltató Zrt. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

| 3. | Declares that the intervener is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the intervener is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 31.1.2022.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 486 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 486

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 21, 1994.
    Resolved, That the bill of the Senate (S. 729) to amend the Toxic Substances 
Control Act to reduce the levels of lead in the environment, and for other 
purposes, in the opinion of this House, contravenes the first clause of the 
seventh section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States 
and is an infringement of the privileges of this House and that such bill be 
respectfully returned to the Senate with a message communicating this 
resolution.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
**Exhibit
      99.0**




Report
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




The
      Board
      of Directors and Stockholders


Habersham
      Bancorp:




We
      have
      audited the consolidated statements of earnings, comprehensive income, changes
      in stockholders’ equity, and cash flows of Habersham Bancorp and subsidiaries
      for the year ended December 31, 2003. These consolidated financial statements
      are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to
      express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our
      audit.




We
      conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
      Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we
      plan
      and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
      statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining,
      on a
      test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
      statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used
      and
      significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
      financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a
      reasonable basis for our opinion.




In
      our
      opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly,
      in all material respects, the results of operations and the cash flows of
      Habersham Bancorp and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2003, in
      conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.




KPMG
      LLP




Atlanta,
      Georgia


January
      23, 2004
#### McCOY v. GADDES.

No. 6200.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Feb. 15, 1937.

Harry R. Axelroth, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Axelroth & Porteous, of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for appellant.

Allen Spangler, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.

Before BUFFINGTON and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, and MARIS, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This present case of Dell F. McCoy v. Dorothy E. Gaddes, together with the companion case of Edith Louise McGorry v. Dell F. McCoy, were separate actions brought in the court below to recover damages for the death of the respective plaintiffs’ husbands, Melvin Gaddes and Emmett McGorry, arising out of an automobile collision which occurred on June S, 1932, on the concrete highway known as the Lentz Trail, at a point about a mile and a half east of White Bear, in Carbon county, Pa. McGorry was the owner and driver of one car and Gaddes was his guest therein. The two cases were tried together and resulted in a money verdict for Mrs. Gaddes, which verdict is here sought to be reviewed, and a verdict for the present appellant in the suit brought by Edith Louise McGorry, which latter case is not before us for review.

As we view this present case, it is really an attempt to review the court’s action in refusing a new trial, a matter which is not appealable in the absence of abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge. A study of the proofs show that they warranted the verdict against the present appellant and in favor of Dorothy E. Gaddes and that there is no ground for setting aside that verdict. The fact that the verdict of the jury in the companion case of McGorry v. McCoy is alleged to be inconsistent therewith is no ground for setting aside the present judgment here in review, unless such judgment is based on error.

This leaves only the question of the omission of the trial judge to send for counsel and* give additional instructions to the jury when it requested such instructions. It seems to us that this action of the trial judge was one wholly for the exercise of his discretion. The jury had been sufficiently charged, counsel were absent, and in their absence the trial judge declined to give further instructions. In addition to that, no exception was taken to the action of the judge and there is nothing in the record upon which to base an assignment of error and warrant our review.

*481Without entering into the facts of this case, in which no principle or precedent is involved, we confine ourselves to affirming the judgment of the court below. complicated
Opinion issued April 1 4 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 6
- 00 047
- CV

——————————— IN RE MAROPCO, INC. , Relator

O riginal Proceeding o n Petition fo r Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator , MarOpCo, Inc. , has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a n “Amended Protective O rder ,” an “Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Discovery,” and oral rulings and findings

. 1

1 The underlying case is Preston Marshall, Individually and Rusk Capital Management, L.L.C. v. MarOpCo, Inc. , cause no. 201 5

- 35950, in the 11th District Court of Harris County, Texas , the Honorable Mike D. Miller, presiding

.2

We deny the petition , and dismiss as moot relator’s motion for temporary
relief and all other pending motions

. PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale , and Huddle

.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                                State or Jurisdiction
                             Name of Subsidiary                                     of Incorporation
                             ------------------                                     ----------------
<S>                                                                             <C>
Material Sciences Corporation, Engineered Materials and Solutions Group Inc.
(formerly known as MSC Pre Finish Metals Inc.)                                         Illinois

MSC Pre Finish Metals (EGV) Inc.                                                       Delaware

MSC Pre Finish Metals (MV) Inc.                                                        Delaware

MSC Pre Finish Metals (MT) Inc.                                                        Delaware

MSC Walbridge Coatings Inc.                                                            Delaware

MSC San Diego Holding Company Inc.
   (formerly known as MSC Specialty Films, Inc.)                                       California

MSC Laminates and Composites Inc.                                                      Delaware

MSC Laminates and Composites (EGV) Inc.                                                Delaware

Material Sciences Foreign Sales Corporation                                            U.S. Virgin Islands

MSC Pinole Point Steel Inc.                                                            Delaware

MSC Pre Finish Metals (PP) Inc.                                                        Delaware

MSC/GAC Laminates and Composites Holding GmbH                                          Germany

MSC/GAC Laminates and Composites GmbH & Co. KG                                         Germany

MSC/GAC Beteiligungs GmbH                                                              Germany

MSC/TENKO Laminates and Composites LTDA                                                Brazil
</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The
Board of Directors and Shareholders
Poniard Pharmaceuticals, Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-134480, 333-123672, 333-115497, 333-113706,
333-111344, 333-45398 and 333-35442) on Forms S-3 and in the registration statements (Nos. 333-143965, 333-135861,
333-126209, 333-115729, 333-89476, 333-71368, 333-41764, 333-32583, 33-43860, 33-46317 and
33-87108) on Forms S-8 of Poniard Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated March 13, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Poniard
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and comprehensive loss and cash flows,
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, as of December 31, 2007, which
report appears in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of Poniard Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Our report refers to a change in the accounting policy for
share-based payments to employees as required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004), "Share-Based Payment" effective January 1, 2006.

/s/
KPMG LLP

Seattle,
Washington
March 13, 2008

---



QuickLinks
#### In re: Kennells Mills Sportsmen’s Club, Inc. from Refusal of Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board to Club License *v.*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, Appellant.

*488Argued May 5, 1975,

July 28, 1975:

before President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt.

*Albert B. Miller,*Special Assistant Attorney General, with him *Harry Bowytz,*Chief Counsel, and *Israel Packet,,*Attorney General, for appellant.

*Frank S. Lucente,*with him *Robert M. Philson,*for appellee.

Opinion by

Judge Crumlish, Jr.,

The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Board) appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County which reversed the Board when it refused to grant a new club liquor license to the Appellee, Kennells Mills Sportsmen’s Club, Inc., (Applicant).

We affirm.

Applicant is a non-profit corporation whose stated purpose is to promote hunting, fishing, and other recrea*489tional activities. The club liquor license application was premised on its location in a *resort area*as the term is used in Section 461 (b) of The Liquor Code, Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, *as amended,*47 P.S. §4-461 (b). At the hearing convened by Board there were no protesting witnesses, but there were several witnesses who testified in support of the application.

The record discloses that there are numerous areas suitable for trailer parking in the area and that the area, in season, is used widely for hunting and fishing and sleeping accommodations are available within a radius of ten miles.

The court below specifically found that there is a large seasonal influx during two seasons of the year.

In *Springdale District Sportsmen’s Association v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board,*20 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 479, 342 A.2d 802 (1975), we set forth the law as it relates to the resort exception. Suffice it to say, after careful review of the record, the lower court appropriately found that this area is a “resort area,” and that need to accommodate the club members as it relates to the issue of a club license existed. The sole disquieting issue is that the court below, in attempting to conform to the requirement of *Andes Grove Rod and Gun Club Liquor License Case,*201 Pa. Superior Ct. 21, 190 A. 2d 355 (1963), and make a specific finding as to influx, overlooked the command of specific findings made in *Willowbrook Country Club, Inc. Liquor Case,*409 Pa. 370, 187 A. 2d (1962). There specific numbers of transients incoming during a season were specifically cited. Here, the finding was one of *general increases.*We cannot say, however, that this is sufficient error to reverse the court below, especially in light of the fact that Appellant does not press this issue on appeal.

Consistent with the foregoing, the order of the court below is affirmed.
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 71 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cv -0 06 41 -CEH-SP C LEONARD WAYNE TAYLOR, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el lant , ve rs us FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, J. H. KINNEY, Serg ean t, WARDEN, HAMILTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, M. STEVENSON, Cl as si fic at io n Off

ic er (fo rm er Se rg ean t), SECRETARY, DOC, et a l., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 22 , 20 11 ) Befo re WILSON, PRYOR an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.PER CURI AM:

Leo na rdW ayne Tay lo r, a fed eral pri so ne r, ap pe al s p ro se the di sm is sa l witho utpre

jud ic e o f hi s co m

pl ai ntun de r th e “ th ree s tri ke s” pro vi si on of t he Pri so n Lit ig at io n R efo rm

Act. 2 8 U.S.C. § 19 15 (g ). The p ro vi si on pro hi bi ts a pr is on er fro m fil in g aciv il act io n i f he ha s, “ on 3 o r m or e p rio r oc cas io ns , . . . bro ug htan act io n o r ap pe al
. . . th atwas d is m is se d o n the gro un ds th atitis fri vo lo us , m al ic io us , or fa il s t o s ta te a cl ai m up on whi chrel ie f m ay

be grant ed .” Id . Whe n Tay lo r fi le d h is co m

pl ai ntonOcto be r 15 , 20 10 , th e d is tri ctco urt h addi sm is se d
on ly two ci vi l ac ti on s fi le d b y Tay lo r. See Taylorv. Germ an y , D.C. Dock etNo. 98 -cv -0 02 63 ; Taylorv. Germ an y , D.C. Dock etNo. 9 8- cv -0 03 05 . The d is tri ct
co urt d is m is se d Taylor ’s th irdciv il act io n a fte rwardonOcto be r 29 , 20 10 , see Tay lo r v. M ia m i-Da de Cn ty. Dep ’t of Co rr., D.C. Dock etNo. 0 9- cv -2 37 15 , whi ch do es no t co un t as a “ st rik e” ag ai ns t Taylor un de r se ct io n 1 91 5( g) . W e VACATE th e jud gm en t d is m is si ng Tay lo r’s co m pl ai nt , andwe REMAND forfurth er pr oc eed in gs . VACATED AND REMANDED.

2
#### FLORIDA STATE TURNPIKE AUTHORITY et al., Appellants, v. Cydney Louise ARONSON, a minor, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 71-1106.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 17, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2023071EN.01002402.xml

| 27.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2022 — Trend Glass v EUIPO (ECO STORAGE)

(Case T-777/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark ECO STORAGE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - Legal certainty - Equal treatment)

(2023/C 71/31)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Trend Glass sp. z o.o. (Radom, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Chylińska and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 October 2021 (Case R 1315/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Trend Glass sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Trend Glass sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 31.1.2022.

---
No. 10718.

#### Village of Mt. Pleasant *v.*McCullough.

Decided November 10, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Jefferson county.

*Mr. Ernest L. Finley,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. P. P. Lewis*and *Mr. Dio Rogers,*for defendant in error.

Judgment of the circuit court reversed and on undisputed material facts, the judgment of the common pleas is reversed, and judgment is rendered for plaintiff in error on authority of *City of Dayton*v. *Glaser, 76*Ohio St., 471.

Si-iauck, Crew, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
#### John F. BURTON v. B. R. BAYS, Trustee In Bankruptcy of the ESTATE of The HARBURNEY OIL COMPANY, et al.

No. 1501.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Feb. 17, 1937.

Ringolsky, Boatright & Jacobs, of Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.

L. P. Brooks, of Wichita, Kan., for appellees.

Before LEWIS, PHILLIPS, and BRATTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appeals dismissed on stipulation of the parties.
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

SUFFOLK BANCORP (REGISTRANT)

Subsidiaries of the Registrant:



|                                                                                        |  |                              |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | 
|Name                                                                                    |  | Jurisdiction of Organization
|                                                                                        | 
|SUFFOLK COUNTY NATIONAL BANK                                                            |  | United States               
|(wholly owned subsidiary)                                                               |  |                             
|                                                                                        | 
|SUFFOLK GREENWAY, INC.                                                                  |  | New York                    
|Real Estate Investment Trust Majority Interest (non-voting preferred minority interest) |  |                             
|                                                                                        | 
|SCNB FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.                                                           |  | New York                    
|Investment and Insurance Agency (wholly owned subsidiary)                               |  |