alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019399EN.01006201.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/62

---

Order of the General Court of 16 September 2019 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-703/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - European Social Fund - Operational programme ‘Knowledge Education Development’ - Letter notifying a final audit report - Act not amenable to review - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 399/76)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Arenas and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFUE for the annulment of the decision of the Commission allegedly contained in its letter of 17 September 2018 notifying the Republic of Poland the final audit report relating to the operational programme ‘Knowledge Education Development’.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | It is not necessary to adjudicate on the Czech Republic’s application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is not necessary to adjudicate on the Czech Republic’s application to intervene.

| 3. | The Republic of Poland and the European Commission shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Republic of Poland and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.

| 4. | The Czech Republic shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Czech Republic shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 25, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 4322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1648]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Time and Date:  Wednesday, January 26, 2011; 10 a.m.-11 a.m.

Place: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

Status: Closed to the public.

Matter To Be Considered

Compliance Status Report

    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

Contact Person for More Information: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: January 21, 2011.
Todd A Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-1648 Filed 1-21-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
#### Patten v. Kinoshita & Steele

21685, 21546

04/28/1999

Affirmed and Reversed in part
<PAGE>

 Exhibit 10(iii) - Amendment dated May 23, 2000 to the MAF Bancorp, Inc. 1990
                   Incentive Stock Option Plan, as amended.
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10(iii)


                           CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION


     I, Carolyn Pihera, do hereby certify that I am the duly elected and acting
Secretary of MAF Bancorp, Inc. and that the following is a true and correct copy
of certain Resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of said Company at
their regular meeting held May 23, 2000, at which meeting a quorum of the
members of said Board were present and acting throughout:

     WHEREAS, the definition of Fair Market Value in the Company's stock option
plans determines the methodology under which the exercise price of stock option
grants is determined; and

     WHEREAS, the definition of Fair Market Value in the Company's 1990
Incentive Stock Option Plan (the "Incentive Plan") and 1993 Amended and Restated
Premium Price Stock Option Plan (the "Premium Plan") is not the same as the
definition contained in the MAF Bancorp, Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan (the "2000
Option Plan"); and

     WHEREAS, the Company desires to conform the definition of Fair Market Value
in each of its stock option plans;

     NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that the definition of Fair Market
Value contained in the Incentive Plan and the Premium  Plan is hereby amended to
read as follows:

     "Fair Market Value" means the average of the highest and lowest trade
prices of   the Stock as reported by the Nasdaq Stock Market on a particular
date.  In the   event that there are no Stock transactions on such date, the
Fair Market Value   shall  be determined as of the immediately preceding date on
which there were Stock transactions.

     I do further certify that the foregoing Resolutions have not been altered
or amended, but remain in force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Certificate and affixed the
Company's seal this 31st day of May, 2000.


MAF BANCORP, INC.
<PAGE>

/s/ Carolyn Pihera
------------------------------------
Carolyn Pihera, Corporate Secretary
Exhibit 10.9


 


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
(this “Amendment”) is dated May 1, 2018, by and between Nevada Gold & Casinos, Inc., a Nevada corporation
(the “Company”), and Ernest E. East (“Employee”).


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Employee entered
into that certain Employment Agreement dated April 14, 2011 (the “Employment Agreement”) and a certain Letter
Agreement dated April 2, 2018 that temporarily amends such Employment Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS, the parties desire to make a
clarifying amendment to the Employment Agreement.


 


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the
mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.        The
second sentence of Section 4(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


 


“In such case, Employer shall pay the Annual Salary
to Employee for a twelve month period following termination of employment plus a pro rata performance bonus and accrued but unused
vacation as of the date of termination. If Employee timely elects continuation coverage pursuant to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1986, as amended (“COBRA”) for Employee and his eligible dependents the Company will monthly
reimburse Employee for the COBRA premiums for such coverage for twelve months from the date of termination (the “Continuation
Benefit”).”


 


2.        The
second sentence of Section 4(b) of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


 


“In the event of such a termination, Employer shall
pay to Employee in a lump sum (i) an amount equal to twelve months Annual Salary, (ii) a pro rata performance bonus and (iii) accrued
but unused vacation as of the date of termination. In addition, Employee will be entitled to the Continuation Benefit.”


 


3.        All
other terms of the Employment Agreement, including the Letter Agreement, shall remain in effect.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 




     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have
executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.


 


	 	THE COMPANY:
	 	 
	 	NEVADA GOLD & CASINOS, INC.
	 	 
	 	BY: 	          
	 	 	 
	 	EMPLOYEE:
	 	 
	 	 
	 	Ernest E. East
#### State v. West

21844

04/03/2000

Granted
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-3 No. 333-42245 pertaining to shares issued in connection with the
acquisition of Nexcom Technology, Inc., and Form S-8 (including registration of
shares for resale by means of a Form S-3 prospectus) Nos. 333-95282, 333-3438,
333-21635, and 333-50679 pertaining to the 1993 Employee Stock Purchase Plan,
the 1995 Director Stock Option Plan, the 1989 Stock Plan and the Nonstatutory
Stock Plan of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. of our report dated October 23,
1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K/A)
for the year ended September 30, 1998.
    


                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

   
San Jose, California
February 16, 1999
SUSANA MARTINEZ GOVERNOR State of New Mexico 

### ENVIRONMENTDEPARTMErttNCEIVED

-

### 6PC/~~ Air Quality Bureau 

## PLANNING

## S~~,r-'r-i 1301 SilerRoad, Building B 

## 11 OCT" PH 

## 3: 4 \" ,/ Santa Fe, NM 87507-3113 '" 0' 

### Telephone (505) 476-4300 DAVEMARTIN 

### Fax (505) 476-4375 SECRETARY JOHNA. SANCHEZ LIEUTENANTGOVERNOR

October 6, 20II www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb BUTCH TONGATE ACTING DEPUTYSECRETARY

Mr. Guy Donaldson Ch.ief, AirPlanning Section (6PD-L) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas, TX 75202-2733
SUBJECT: Negative Declaration ofthe Presence ofSewage Sludge Incineration (SSI) Units in the State ofNew Mexico (excluding Bernalillo County, New Mexico and Tribal Lands)
Dear Mr. Donaldson:
Under Section III(d) ofthe Clean Air Act, EPA published regulations at40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B which requires states to submit plans to control emissions ofdesignated pollutants from designated facilities. In the event that a state does not have aparticular designated facility located within its boundaries, EPA requires that a negative declaration be submitted in lieu ofa control plan.
EPA promulgated Standards of PerformanceforNew Sewage Sludge Incineration Units, and Emission Guidelines and Compliance Timesfor Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units, on March 21, 2011 [FR Vol. 76, No. 54, pp. 15372-15454]. Under this rule, new sources are subject to 40 CFR 60 Subpart LLLL, and existing sources are subject to emission guidelines under Subpart MMMM.
This letter serves as a negative declaration ofthe presence ofany SSI units subject to 40 CFR 60, Subparts LLLL or MMMM, within the State ofNew Mexico, excluding Bernalillo County, New Mexico and all Tribal lands.Mr. Guy Donaldson October 6,2011 Page 2

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Gail Cooke of my staffat 505-476-4319. Sincerely

# ~/~~-<d<~ Richard L. Goodyear, PE / Acting Air Quality Bureau Chief

cc: JeffRobinson, Chief, Air Permits Section, U.S. EPA, Region 6 Ken Boyce, Environmental Protection Specialist, AirPlanning Section, U.S. EPA, Region 6 Alan Shar, SIP Coordinator, U.S. EPA, Region 6
M13003 

Part II, Section A.2 and A.3 – Industrial Sites Controlled by Submitter 

Occupational Exposure and Environmental Release and Disposal Page 1 of 1 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED
#### Pu v. State

22258

04/24/2000

Vacated & Remanded
#### State v. Vallesteros

18918

3/25/97

Denied

84 Hawai'i 295, 933 P.2d 632
# C_2018392EN.01000301.xml

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/3

---

Appeal brought on 6 April 2018 by Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2018 in Case T-775/16: Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ v EUIPO

(Case C-246/18 P)

(2018/C 392/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (represented by: R. Žabolienė, advokatė, I. Lukauskienė, advokatė)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO

By order of 6 September 2018 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
10526

#### Kobayashi v. Kim

Dismissed
September 20, 2016

Exemption No. 14422A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–5453

Mr. Jeffrey J. Antonelli

Ms. Amelia R Niemi

Antonelli Law

Counsel for L.A. Drones, LLC

35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1875

Chicago, IL 60601

Dear Mr. Antonelli and Ms. Niemi:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains 

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions 

and limitations.

By letter dated January 2016, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of L.A. Drones, LLC (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an amendment to your 

current exemption. That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 

61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and 

(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the 

petitioner to conduct UAS operations. You requested an amendment to change the company 

name from LA Drones, LLC to L.A. Drones, LLC.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner. 

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 14422

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained 
2

in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is 

granted an amendment to change the operator name.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

 

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of amendment, L.A. Drones, LLC is hereafter referred to as the operator. All 

conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 14422 remain in effect. 

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be 

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption. 

This exemption terminates on January 31, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
#### State v. Darisay

16541

11/19/96

Affirmed
# C_2019230EN.01006501.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/65

---

Order of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission

(Case T-419/18) (1)

(2019/C 230/78)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.

---
# C_2021217EN.01003701.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Andreas Stihl v EUIPO — Giro Travel Company (Combination of the colours grey and orange)

(Case T-193/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU mark consisting of a combination of the colours grey and orange - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 4 and Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Sufficiently clear and precise graphic representation - Requirement for a systematic arrangement associating the colours in a predetermined and uniform way)

(2021/C 217/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG (Waiblingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Völker, M. Pemsel and C. Eulenpesch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Giro Travel Company SRL (Roman, Romania) (represented by: C. Frisch, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 January 2018 (Case R 200/2017-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Giro Travel Company and Andreas Stihl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 January 2018 (Case R 200/2017-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 January 2018 (Case R 200/2017-2);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG;

| 3. | Orders Giro Travel Company SRL to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Giro Travel Company SRL to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.

---
#### State v. Kahoonei

17201

5/25/95

Granted

— P.2d —
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

April 22, 1997

18280

#### Hawai'i Ironworkers, Local Union No. 625 of the Intern. Ass’n of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Ironworkers, Aflcio, Trust Funds v. Hughes Steel Erectors, Inc.

Vacated
Title: Process for Prelicensing Inspections Requests

Release Date: 11 Feb 2020 Author: RSCHNURR Document Number: CVB-WI-0093.03

CONTROLLED//PROPIN//BASIC

Printed by: CRRYAN on 19 Feb 2020, 11:43:48 am.

Controlled by: APHIS Center for Veterinary Biologics, 515-337-6100
Title: Process for Prelicensing Inspections Requests

Release Date: 11 Feb 2020 Author: RSCHNURR Document Number: CVB-WI-0093.03

CONTROLLED//PROPIN//BASIC

Printed by: CRRYAN on 19 Feb 2020, 11:43:48 am.

Controlled by: APHIS Center for Veterinary Biologics, 515-337-6100




Title: Process for Prelicensing Inspections Requests

Release Date: 11 Feb 2020 Author: RSCHNURR Document Number: CVB-WI-0093.03

CONTROLLED//PROPIN//BASIC

Printed by: CRRYAN on 19 Feb 2020, 11:43:48 am.

Controlled by: APHIS Center for Veterinary Biologics, 515-337-6100
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0456

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY SCOTT CHARLIE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 13, 2024, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 9 2024

08/09/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0456
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Supervisory Animal Care Specialist

Areas

Last Modified: 

Print

Supervisor States Covered Email Address

Dr. Ashley Alger AK, CA, MT, OR, UT, WA ashley.alger@usda.gov

Dr. Heather Cole IA, NE heather.a.cole@usda.gov

Dr. Kathy Garland CA, HI, Pacific Islands, NV kathleen.m.garland@usda.gov

Dr. Tonya Hadjis CT, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NY,

VT, RI

tonya.hadjis@usda.gov

Dr. Cathy

Hovancsak MN, ND, SD, WI cathy.f.hovancsak@usda.gov

Dr. Dana Miller OH, VA dana.miller2@usda.gov

Dr. Kristin Napoli FL, Puerto Rico, US Virgin

Islands kristin.napoli@usda.gov

Dr. Jami Niemann MO jamilon.a.niemann@usda.gov

Dr. David Sabala AR, OK david.l.sabala@usda.gov

Dr. Mike Schnell IN, KY, MI michael.a.schnell@usda.gov

Dr. Jeff Shepherd NC, NJ, MD, PA jeffrey.shepherd@usda.gov

Dr. Will Snow TX william.w.snow@usda.gov

Dr. Lynne WhiteShim IL, IN, MI, MO, WI lynne.a.white-shim@usda.gov

Dr. Tanesha Wilkins AL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TN tanesha.wilkins@usda.gov
Supervisor States Covered Email Address

Vacancy  PA

Vacancy  MO

Vacancy  AZ, CO, KS, NE, NM, TX, WY
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7747** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. MARCUS DARNELL PICKETT, a/k/a Eric Smith , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville
. G. Ross Anderson, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 6:09

- cr - 00178

- GRA

- 1 )

Submitted : February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Marcus Darnell Pickett, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Marcus Darnell Pickett appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Pickett , No. 6:09

- cr - 00178

- GRA

- 1 (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal c ontentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 22







SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



1.

Fonix/AcuVoice, Inc., a Utah corporation, wholly owned by Fonix



2.

Fonix/Papyrus Corporation, a Utah corporation, wholly owned by Fonix



3.

Fonix UK Ltd., a limited company organized under the laws of the United Kingdom, wholly owned by Fonix



4.

Fonix Sales, Korea Group, Ltd., a Korean entity wholly owned by Fonix



5.

LTEL Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation, wholly owned by Fonix



6.

LTEL Holdings Corporation, a Delaware corporation, wholly owned by LTEL Acquisition Corp.



7.

LecStar Telecom, Inc., a Georgia corporation, wholly owned by LTEL Holdings Corporation



8.

LecStar DataNet, Inc., a Georgia corporation, wholly owned by LTEL Holdings Corporation



9.

Fonix Telecom, Inc., a Delaware corporation, wholly owned by Fonix



10.

TOE Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware corporation, wholly owned by Fonix
# C_2019406EN.01003201.xml

| 2.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — The Logistical Approach v EUIPO — Idea Groupe (Idealogistic Compass Greatest care in getting it there)

(Case T-716/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Idealogistic Compass Greatest care in getting it there - Earlier international figurative mark IDÉA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 406/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: The Logistical Approach BV (Uden, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Milchior and S. Charbonnel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Ruzek, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Idea Groupe (Montoir de Bretagne, France) (represented by: P. Langlais and C. Guyot, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September 2018 (Case R 2062/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Idea Groupe and The Logistical Approach.

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 21 September 2018 (Case R 2062/2017-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 September 2018 (Case R 2062/2017-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO and Idea Groupe to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by The Logistical Approach BV. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO and Idea Groupe to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by The Logistical Approach BV.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.

---