alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022340EN.01003901.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — Les Éditions P. Amaury v EUIPO — Golden Balls (BALLON D’OR)

(Case T-478/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark BALLON D’OR - Genuine use of the mark - Partial revocation - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use - Assessment of the evidence - Classification of the services)

(2022/C 340/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Les Éditions P. Amaury (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and M. Laborde, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Golden Balls Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor, and T. Dolde and V. Pati, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 June 2021 (Case R 1073/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 June 2021 (Case R 1073/2020-4) in so far as it upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division to revoke the mark in respect of the following services in Class 41 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended: ‘entertainment’, ‘television entertainment’ and ‘organisation of competitions (entertainment)’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 June 2021 (Case R 1073/2020-4) in so far as it upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division to revoke the mark in respect of the following services in Class 41 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended: ‘entertainment’, ‘television entertainment’ and ‘organisation of competitions (entertainment)’;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

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

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.

---
#### Martin D. VON ZAMFT and Johnson Pierce, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. Stuart B. GREENFIELD, Appellee.

No. 67-360.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 11, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Sidney Donald FAST v. STATE.

No. 38693.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 221 So.2d 203.
VI

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1100

For the relief of Amalia Hatzipetrou and Konstantinos Hatzipetrou.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 15, 1993

Mr. CRAIG introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Amalia Hatzipetrou and Konstantinos

Hatzipetrou.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

4 In the administration of the Immigration and Nation5 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Amalia Hatzipetrou and

6 Konstantinos Hatzipetrou shall be held and considered to

7 have been lawfully admitted to the United States for per8 manent residence as of the date of enactment of this Act

9 upon payment of the required visa fees.
2

S 1100 IS

1 SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

2 Upon the granting of permanent residence to Amalia

3 Hatzipetrou and Konstantinos Hatzipetrou as provided in

4 this Act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper

5 officer to reduce by one number during the current fiscal

6 year the total number of immigrant visas available to na7 tives of the country of the alien’s birth under subsections

8 (a) and (b) of section 203 of the Immigration and Nation9 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153).

Æ
J. 

Second, Boss argues that the district court abused its 

discretion and usurped the authority of the parole board by imposing the 

maximum sentence provided by the relevant statutes. Boss does not 

allege that the statues fixing punishment are unconstitutional, see Blume 

v. State,112 Nev. 472, 475, 915 P.2d 282, 284 (1996), and his consecutive 

terms of 24-60 months for being a felon in possession of a firearm, 48-120 

months for burglary, and 24-60 months for eluding a police officer, fall 

within the parameters authorized by the relevant statutes, see NRS 

202.360(1), NRS 205.060(2), NRS 484.348(3)(b). We conclude that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion at sentencing. Houk v. State, 

103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987). 

Having considered Boss' contentions and concluded that they 

are without merit, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

Gibbons 

J. 

J. 

Douglas 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge 

Washoe County Alternate Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

2
#### Richard A. SCHROETER, Appellant, v. Carole L. SCHROETER, Appellee.

No. 72-620.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 5, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY
RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a) AND UNDER
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Joseph J. Ueberroth, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ambassadors
International, 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this 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 report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:  (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to 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)
    
    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(c)
    
    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 officer(s) 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. May 6, 2004 /s/ Joseph J. UeberrothJoseph J. UeberrothPresident andChief Executive Officer
#### MISSISSIPPI STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, Appellant, v. R. D. VAUGHN et al., Appellees.

No. 46659.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 15, 1972.

Osborn G. Idom, Dannye L. Hunter, Forest, for appellant.

O. B. Triplett, Jr., Jerry Bustin, Forest, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SUMMIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. DATED
DECEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       5,397,897
<SECURITIES>                                25,986,493
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,266,081
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,556,842
<PP&E>                                       1,376,716
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,163,364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,004,584
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,716
<OTHER-SE>                                  30,125,064
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,163,364
<SALES>                                      3,849,768
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,849,768
<CGS>                                        2,482,069
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,077,381
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                815,165
<INCOME-TAX>                                       195
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            814,970
<DISCONTINUED>                             (16,185,915)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (15,370,945)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (4.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (4.43)


</TABLE>
# T HE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 2ND DISTRICT COURT OF CHEROKEE CO UNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 2 9 th

day of May, 2015 , the cause u pon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

OSCAR HERNANDEZ , Appellant

NO. 12

- 13

- 00260

- CR; Trial Court No. 17,690

Opinion by James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its or der in these words:

“ THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the

same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court

below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be certified to the court below for

observance. ”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texa s in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN , Chief Justice of our Court

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of

Tyler , this the 14 th day of December , 2015.

PAM ESTES , CLERK

By:

_______________________________ Chief Deputy Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1050 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1050

   To amend title 10, United States Code, to ensure the issuance of 
regulations applicable to the Coast Guard regarding consideration of a 
request for a permanent change of station or unit transfer submitted by 
   a member of the Coast Guard who is the victim of a sexual assault.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2013

 Ms. Collins (for herself, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Blumenthal, 
 Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Begich, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Johanns, Ms. Ayotte, Mrs. 
Gillibrand, and Ms. Klobuchar) introduced the following bill; which was 
  read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                             Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 10, United States Code, to ensure the issuance of 
regulations applicable to the Coast Guard regarding consideration of a 
request for a permanent change of station or unit transfer submitted by 
   a member of the Coast Guard who is the victim of a sexual assault.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Coast Guard STRONG Act''.

SEC. 2. ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE COAST GUARD REGARDING 
              CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION 
              OR UNIT TRANSFER BY VICTIM OF SEXUAL ASSAULT.

    Section 673(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``The Secretaries of the military departments'' and inserting 
``The Secretary concerned''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 200215 U.S.C. SECTION 7241

 

 

I, John H. Sottile, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Goldfield Corporation;

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 report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

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

a.   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to 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 Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986)

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 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 officer 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.

 

Date: November 14, 2003

 

/s/ John H. SottileJohn H. Sottile Chairman of the Board of Directors,    President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Julius Earl GERMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1024.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 1, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Lucie County; Wallace Sample, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
H. Res. 298

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

November 9, 1993.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (H.R. 3167) to extend the emergency unemployment

compensation program, to establish a system of worker

profiling, and for other purposes. All points of order against

the conference report and against its consideration are

waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### William CONYERS, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. I-306.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Sept. 14, 1967.

See also 200 So.2d 821.

William Conyers, Jr., in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and David U. Tumin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ON MOTION TO REQUIRE COURT REPORTER TO PREPARE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT

PER CURIAM.

Upon the appellant’s filing of his motion to require the official deputy court reporter to prepare and file the transcript of the trial proceedings in this cause, this court entered an order.on July 11, 1967, as revised by our order of August 1, 1967, reported in Fla.App., 200 So.2d 821, appointing the sentencing judge as a commissioner to take evidence as to the truth of the allegations of the appellant’s motion, to make findings of fact, and to recommend appropriate action on the motion.

Pursuant to his commission the commissioner duly held an evidentiary hearing and has recently filed in this court his report and a supplemental report, in which he reports, among other things, that the court reporter, eight days after the said hearing, filed the trial transcript which is the subject of the appellant’s motion. This transcript is now lodged in our court file. Therefore, the matters involved in the appellant’s motion before us having become moot, the said motion should be and it is

Denied.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., CONCUR.
#### CAVANAGH COMMUNITIES CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, formerly known as Cavanagh Leasing Corporation, Appellant, v. R. L. POLK & COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-559.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 23, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Wallace R. SMITH, Petitioner, v. THE FLORIDA BAR, Respondent.

No. 40320.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 9, 1970.

Wallace R. Smith, in pro. per.

Frank A. Ford, Bartow, for The Florida Bar.

PER CURIAM.

The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar has filed in this Court the following *688recommendation for reinstatement to The Florida Bar of Wallace R. Smith:

> “This cause came on for consideration and review by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar pursuant to the report of its referee and the record of proceedings before him.

> “Upon consideration of the referee’s report and record, the referee’s findings and recommendations were confirmed by the Board of Governors. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Wallace R. Smith, be reinstated to membership in good standing in The Florida Bar.”

Upon consideration of the above recommendation and the referee’s report confirmed thereby, it is

Ordered that Wallace R. Smith be and he is reinstated to membership in The Florida Bar.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### Ell-GEE, INC. et al., Relators, v. Honorable Richard H. M. SWANN, as Chief Judge et al., Respondents.

No. 41385.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 28, 1971.

Alan E. Weinstein, Miami Beach, for re-lators.

Richard E. Gerstein, State’s Atty., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on Suggestion for Writ of Prohibition seeking to prohibit the respondents, as and constituting the District Court of Appeal, Third District, from proceeding further in the case of State of Florida v. Ell-Gee, Inc., et al, now pending in that Court.

Oral argument is dispensed with pursuant to Rule 3.10(e), Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.

Relators contend that the State’s notice of appeal was not timely because filed more than 30 days from the oral order of the Court made in open court on March 9, 1971, and noted by the Clerk on the same day in the record minute book. The Court filed its written order March 29, 1971. The State’s notice of appeal was filed April 28, 1971.

Relators rely on the case of Gossett v. State, 188 So.2d 836 (Fla.App.2d 1966), holding an unsigned minute book entry of judgment was appealable. This Court expressly declined to follow the *Gossett*decision in Jenkins v. Lyles, 223 So.2d 740, 742 (Fla.1969). More recently, in State ex rel. Faircloth v. Cross, 238 So.2d 81 (Fla.1970), a proceeding in prohibition to prevent the exercise of jurisdiction in a criminal appeal, we held:

> “[I]t is clear that the judgment is not rendered for the purpose of an appeal unless it is rendered ‘in open court and *851in writing, signed by the judge and filed.’ as required by Rule 1.670, Cr.P.R.”

Accordingly, the Suggestion for Writ of Prohibition is denied and the cause dismissed.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., concurs in the conclusion only.