alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008209EN.01006601.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/66

---

Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Wrigley v OHIM — Mejerigaarden (POLAR ICE)

(Case T-256/08)

(2008/C 209/116)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Chicago, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Schäffler and A. Bognár, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mejerigaarden Holding A/S (Thisted, Denmark)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 April 2008 in case R 845/2006-2; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 April 2008 in case R 845/2006-2; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘POLAR ICE’ for goods in classes 3, 5 and 30

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

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

Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 1 273 564 of the figurative mark ‘Polar is’ for goods in class 30; Danish trade mark registration No VR 1971 03528 of the word mark ‘POLAR IS’ for goods in class 30; Danish trade mark registration No VR 1994 07979 of the word mark ‘POLAR MAXI’ for goods in class 30

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the Community trade mark application in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the conflicting trade marks show relevant visual, phonetic and conceptual dissimilarities to avoid any likelihood of confusion.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2011194EN.01001301.xml

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2011 — Habanos v OHIM — Tabacos de Centroamérica (KIOWA)

(Case T-207/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark KIOWA - Earlier Community and national figurative marks COHIBA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 194/18

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Corporación Habanos, SA (Havana, Cuba) (represented initially by V. Gil Vega and A. Ruiz López, and subsequently by A. Ruiz López, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Tabacos de Centroamérica, SL (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) (represented by: R.M. Caldés Llopis, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 March 2008 (Case R 1189/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Corporación Habanos, SA and Tabacos de Centroamérica, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

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

1.

The action is dismissed;

| 2. | Corporación Habanos, SA is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Corporación Habanos, SA is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

| 3. | Tabacos de Centroamérica, SL is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Tabacos de Centroamérica, SL is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 15.08.2008.

1

---
#### McCASLAND v. PARRISH et al.

No. 35675.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Jan. 27, 1954.

Brown, Cund & Brown, Duncan, for plaintiff in error.

Hubbell & Eubanks, Walters, for defendants in error.

JOHNSON, Vice Chief Justice.

Parties will be referred to herein as they appeared in the trial court.

Garland Parrish et al., on September 20, 1950, brought this action to quiet title to certain lands located in Cotton County; Oklahoma. They base their claim upon a resale tax deed, dated April 25, 1936, which was filed for record on the same date, and a mineral deed from Nell Tingley to one of the plaintiffs, dated April 19, 1940, and recorded April 25, 1940. Parrish has been in adverse possession of the property since 1937. Defendant, T. H. McCasland, for defense and for affirmative relief sought to quiet his title to the property involved and *451based his rights upon a mineral deed to him from Joe Dice of June -12, 1926, and recorded on the same date, under which no development of wells or severance of minerals was shown, or admitted.

From a judgment for Parrish et al., the defendant appeals.

Error is presented under two propositions. First, “the trial court erred in finding from the evidence that the resale tax deed was valid.” Second, “the trial court erred in holding that defendant never owned any mineral interest in the premises.”

The record discloses that the delinquent tax list of the regular sale of 1932 gave the description of the land involved in this action as S/2 NE 4, Sec. 1-3S-12W. The 1936 notice of resale óf real estate for delinquent taxes described the property as 51⁄2 1-3-12 and the resale tax deed to Garland Parrish described the property as the S% of NE^, of Sec. 1, Twp. 3S, R. 12W. I. M., containing 80 acres, which is admittedly correct.

It is this discrepancy in the description of the property in t!s.e resale notice that defendant contends vitiates the resale and renders the deed void.

Plaintiff relying upon Title 12 O.S.1951 § 93, Laws 1949, page 95, § 1, Jenkins v. Frederick, 208 Okl. 583, 257 P.2d 1058, and Woods v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 207 Okl. 490, 251 P.2d 505, claims-that any rights the defendant might have had under his mineral deed are barred -by Section 93, supra, and we agree. No action was brought within five years by defendant to declare the resale tax deed void under 12 O.S.1951 § 93(3) nor within one year after the effective date of said statute as required by 12 O.S.1951 § 93(6).

For the reasons stated in the Woods case, supra, and Jenkins case, supra, the judgment is affirmed.

In view of our disposition of this contention, it becomes unnecessary to consider other contentions.

HALLEY, C. J., and CORN, DAVISON, ARNOLD, O’NEAL, WILLIAMS and BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 11.1


5



---



##### 



IPC HOLDINGS, LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES


CALCULATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE




|                                           |  |                         |            |  |           |   |            |           |  |   |            | 
|------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------- | ---------- |  | --------- | - | ---------- | --------- |  | - | ---------- | 
|                                           |  | Year Ended December 31, |           
|                                           |  |                         |           
|                                           |  | 2004                    |            |  | 2003      |   |            | 2002      | 
|                                           |  |                         |            |  |           |   |            |           | 
|                                           |  | (Audited)               |            |  | (Audited) |   |            | (Audited) | 
|BASIC                                      |  |                         |            |  |           |   |            |           |  |   |            | 
|Net income                                 |  | $                       | 138,613    |  |           | $ | 260,629    |           |  | $ | 157,906    | 
|Common shares outstanding at January 1     |  |                         | 48,245,395 |  |           |   | 48,179,805 |           |  |   | 48,172,776 | 
|Common shares outstanding at December 31   |  |                         | 48,323,329 |  |           |   | 48,245,395 |           |  |   | 48,179,805 | 
|Weighted average common shares outstanding |  |                         | 48,287,261 |  |           |   | 48,205,554 |           |  |   | 48,173,362 | 
|Net income per common share                |  | $                       | 2.87       |  |           | $ | 5.41       |           |  | $ | 3.28       | 
|DILUTED                                    |  |                         |            |  |           |   |            |           |  |   |            | 
|Net income                                 |  | $                       | 138,613    |  |           | $ | 260,629    |           |  | $ | 157,906    | 
|Weighted average common shares outstanding |  |                         | 48,287,261 |  |           |   | 48,205,554 |           |  |   | 48,173,362 | 
|Dilutive effect of share options           |  |                         | 89,604     |  |           |   | 97,025     |           |  |   | 93,082     | 
|                                           |  |                         |            |  |           |   |            |           | 
|Total                                      |  |                         | 48,376,865 |  |           |   | 48,302,579 |           |  |   | 48,266,444 | 
|                                           |  |                         |            |  |           |   |            |           | 
|Net income per common share                |  | $                       | 2.87       |  |           | $ | 5.40       |           |  | $ | 3.27       |
#### In the Matter of Elsie Ciotti, Appellant, v Lloyd King, Jr., et al., Respondents, and Angelo R. Martinelli, Respon*890dent.

— In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating Angelo R. Martinelli as a candidate in the Republican Party primary election to be held on September 12, 1991, for the nomination of that party as its candidate for the public office of Mayor of the City of Yonkers, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.), dated August 8, 1991, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the proceeding is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a re-opened hearing on the issue of the validity of service of the order to show cause commencing this proceeding to afford the respondent-respondent an opportunity to present his evidence, to be followed, regardless of the outcome on the issue of service, by a hearing on the issue of the validity of the designating petition. The hearings shall be commenced forthwith.

The petitioner’s proof at the hearing reveals that on July 29, 1991, at approximately 8:30 a.m., a process server entered the respondent-respondent Martinelli’s residence at the invitation of his son. Once inside the house, the process server handed the pleadings to Mr. Martinelli’s wife who had appeared in the hallway. She immediately proceeded to the kitchen and handed the pleadings to Mr. Martinelli in the presence of the process server. The Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, based upon its finding, at the conclusion of the petitioner’s proof, that service had not been accomplished by "personal delivery”. We now reverse.

It is well settled that valid service, pursuant to CPLR 308 (1), is effected where a process server delivers the pleadings to another individual in the presence of the named party, or where the delivery is so close both in time and space that it can be classified as part of the same act *(see, Jones v Nossoughi,*147 AD2d 447; *Bradley v Musacchio,*94 AD2d 783; *Daniels v Eastman,*87 AD2d 882; *Conroy v International Term. Operating Co.,*87 AD2d 858). Here the petitioner made a prima facie showing that personal delivery of the pleadings was properly effectuated pursuant to CPLR 308 (1). However, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court to afford the respondent-respondent an opportunity to contravene the petitioner’s proof as to service. In view of the time constraints involved in this matter, we further direct that an immediate hearing on the validity of the designating petition be held. *891Bracken, J. P., Hooper, Harwood, Balletta and Copertino, JJ., concur.
**Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2008 – SACEM v Commission**

**(Case T-422/08 R)**

Interim measures – Decision of the Commission ordering cessation of a concerted practice in relation to the collective management of copyright
– Application for suspension of a measure – No urgency

1.                     *Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – ‘Prima
facie case’ – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243
EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 22-25)*

2.                     *Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency
– Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance,
Art. 104(2)) (see paras 37-38, 47, 51)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 – CISAC). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the application for interim measures; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Reserves the costs. |
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 123 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H6000]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. LAMBORN:
       H.R. 6389.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       The Preamble of the Constitution identifies ``providing for 
     the common defense'' as one of the core responsibilities of 
     the federal government. Additionally, Article 1 Section 8 
     clauses 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16 make clear national defense 
     was a priority for the founders as they drafted the 
     Constitution. Furthermore, this legislation restores a proper 
     balance of power between the federal government and state 
     governments as the 10th Amendment intended.
```
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Craig F. Fortin, the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of NB&T Financial
Group, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of NB&T Financial Group, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual 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-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 annual 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 year 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 registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

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: March 20, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/    CRAIG F. FORTIN                           
|                     |  |  |  | Craig F. Fortin                                  
|                     |  |  |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



65
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 – Clearwire v OHIM (CLEARWIFI)**

**(Case T-399/08)**

Community trade mark – International registration designating the European Community – Word mark CLEARWIFI – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation
No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 27, 50-51)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2008 (R 706/2008‐1) concerning the international registration, designating the European Community, of the sign CLEARWIFI. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Clearwire Corporation |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark CLEARWIFI for services in Class 38 (international Registration No W00934594) |
| Decision of the examiner: | Application rejected |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Clearwire Corporation to pay the costs. |
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Annual Report of Frisco Bay Industries Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended January 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
Gagnon, Vice-President, Finance and Information Technology of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.


                                                By: /s/  Robert Gagnon
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Robert Gagnon
                                                    Vice-President, Finance and
                                                    Information Technology

June 25, 2003

A signed original of this written agreement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Report of Voyager One, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gerry
Martin, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Gerry Martin
-------------------------------------
Gerry Martin
President and CFO
November 14, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 3 (Thursday, January 4, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00017]


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

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Thursday, January 11, 2024.

PLACE: You may observe this meeting in person at 1501 Farm Credit 
Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090, or virtually. If you would like to 
observe, at least 24 hours in advance, visit FCA.gov, select 
``Newsroom,'' then select ``Events.'' From there, access the linked 
``Instructions for board meeting visitors'' and complete the described 
registration process.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The following matters will be considered:

<bullet> Approval of Minutes for December 14, 2023
<bullet> Office of Inspector General Year-in-Review Report

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: If you need more information or 
assistance for accessibility reasons, or have questions, contact Ashley 
Waldron, Secretary to the Board. Telephone: 703-883-4009. TTY: 703-883-
4056.

Ashley Waldron,
Secretary to the Board.
[FR Doc. 2024-00017 Filed 1-2-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6705-01-P