alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023155EN.01005701.xml

| 2.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/57

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Gönenç v EUIPO — Solar (termorad ALUMINIUM PANEL RADIATOR)

(Case T-172/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark TERMORAD ALUMINIUM PANEL RADIATOR - Earlier Benelux word mark THERMRAD - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 155/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Salim Selahaddin Gönenç (Konya, Türkiye) (represented by: V. Martín Santos, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Solar A/S (Vejen, Denmark) (represented by L. Elmgaard Sørensen, lawyer)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 January 2022 (Case R 770/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Salim Selahaddin Gönenç to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred in the present proceedings by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Solar A/S. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Salim Selahaddin Gönenç to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred in the present proceedings by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Solar A/S.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 23.5.2022.

---
# C_2022213EN.01002501.xml

| 30.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 9 February 2022 — TT v AK

(Case C-87/22)

(2022/C 213/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: TT

Respondent: AK

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, (1) be interpreted as meaning that the courts of a Member State having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter, if they consider that a court of another Member State, with which the child has a particular connection, would be better placed to hear the case, or a specific part thereof, may request such a court to assume jurisdiction even in the case where that other Member State has become the place of habitual residence of the child following wrongful removal? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, (1) be interpreted as meaning that the courts of a Member State having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter, if they consider that a court of another Member State, with which the child has a particular connection, would be better placed to hear the case, or a specific part thereof, may request such a court to assume jurisdiction even in the case where that other Member State has become the place of habitual residence of the child following wrongful removal?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
  Must Article 15 of Regulation No 2201/2003 be interpreted as meaning that the criteria for the transfer of jurisdiction that are set out in that article are regulated exhaustively, without the need to consider further criteria in the light of proceedings initiated under Article 8(f) of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Must Article 15 of Regulation No 2201/2003 be interpreted as meaning that the criteria for the transfer of jurisdiction that are set out in that article are regulated exhaustively, without the need to consider further criteria in the light of proceedings initiated under Article 8(f) of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.

---
**Exhibit 23****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Registration Nos. 33-38614 and 333-41352) of Raven Industries, Inc. of our report dated March 20,2008 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this AnnualReport on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March20, 2008 relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of A.P. Pharma, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John B. Whelan, Acting Chief Executive 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 Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                              
|------------------------------
|November 15, 2010             
|                              
|/s/ John B. Whelan            
|John B. Whelan                
|Acting Chief Executive Officer
NANOMATERIAL STANDARD EXPOSURE REPORT Page 1 of 1 

P-08-0199 2/20/2008 

Assessor: R. Wormell

Production Volume: 

USE: 

OTHER USES: 

Chemical Name: 

Fate Assessment: 

Due to the novel nature of nanomaterials, it is not possible at this time to make 

assumptions about their behavior in the environment without the collection of physicochemical 

(p-chem) and fate data. The p-chem properties which seem most important for fate assessment 

are: surface reactivity, aggregation/agglomeration, physical form, particle size distribution, 

surface area solubility, dispersability, shape, adsorption tendency and surface charge porosity. 

These p-chem properties are novel to nanomaterials and are not estimated by our current 

collection of fate models, EPI Suite. Therefore, specific data on the actual behavior of the 

nanomaterial in waste water treatment plants (e.g., biodegradation, sorption to sludge, 

volatilization, etc.) and drinking water treatment plants (e.g., effect of chlorination, oxygenation, 

etc.) are needed to determine removal rates. Additionally, data are needed to assess the potential 

for ground water migration. Testing methods typically used for these parameters (e.g., ready 

biodegradation test, porous pot, etc.) may or may not apply. If the amount of the nanomaterial 

released is of concern, EAB recommends that the submitter evaluate the current OPPT guidelines 

for fate testing and then submit fate testing protocols based on their specific knowledge of the 

nanomaterial to the EAB’s fate experts for their review prior to the actual testing. It is possible 

that after several nanomaterials have gone through p-chem and fate testing, that models in EPI 

Suite could be validated for use, or, more likely, a new fate model or models could be developed 

to estimate the fate of a new nanomaterial in the environment. 

General Population and Environmental Exposure
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
 
                                 PUBLICARD, INC
                            AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
 
                        LIST OF SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              STATE OF JURISDICTION
SUBSIDIARY                                                      OF INCORPORATION
----------                                                    ---------------------
<S>                                                           <C>
Amazing! Controls, Inc. (a/k/a Amazing Smart Card             California
  Technologies, Inc.).......................................
Boxsterview, Inc. ..........................................  Delaware
Continental Distilling Corporation..........................  Delaware
Darkrats, Inc. .............................................  Delaware
Fentronics, Inc. ...........................................  Delaware
Greenwald Industries, Inc. .................................  Delaware
Greenwald Intellicard, Inc. ................................  Delaware
Greystone Peripherals, Inc. ................................  California
Hanten Acquisition Co. .....................................  Delaware
Kidde Systems, Inc. ........................................  Delaware
LTA Disposition Corporation.................................  Delaware
Nevco Housewares, Inc. .....................................  Delaware
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc. .....................  Minnesota
Publicker Chemical Corporation..............................  Louisiana
Publicker Gasohol, Inc. ....................................  Delaware
Publicker, Inc. ............................................  Delaware
Rouglas-Dandall, Inc. ......................................  Delaware
Sagrocry, Inc. .............................................  Pennsylvania
Tritheim Technologies, Inc. ................................  Florida
</TABLE>
 
                                       E-1
# C_2022222EN.01003401.xml

| 7.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/34

---

Action brought on 14 April 2022 — Zelmotor v EUIPO — B&B Trends (zelmotor)

(Case T-194/22)

(2022/C 222/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Zelmotor sp. z o.o. (Rzeszów, Poland) (represented by: M. Rumak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: B&B Trends, SL (Santa Perpetua de Mogoda, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ‘zelmotor’ — EU trade mark No 10 980 225

Proceedings before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2022 in Case R 927/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2022 in Case R 927/2021-2 in part, in so far as it makes a declaration of invalidity in respect of the goods and services in Classes 7, 9 and 35, with the exception of stators and rotors in Class 7; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2022 in Case R 927/2021-2 in part, in so far as it makes a declaration of invalidity in respect of the goods and services in Classes 7, 9 and 35, with the exception of stators and rotors in Class 7;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### COM. v. PITZER, A.

1590 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/29/2017

CP-02-CR-0006295-2008 (Allegheny)

Vacated/Remanded
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 26, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 135089 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, MICHAEL SCHILS, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 135089 COA: 277750 Washtenaw CC: 06-000658-CZ WASHTENAW COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 20, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

As plaintiff Michael Schils has repeatedly abused the court system, we DIRECT the Clerks of this Court, the Court of Appe als, and the Washtenaw Circuit Court not to accept any further filings in non-criminal ma tters arising from Schils’ discharge from his employment with Washtenaw Co unty unless he has paid all necessary fees and submitted his filings in full compliance with the court rules.

d0319 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 26, 2008

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8623 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8623

  To amend the CARES Act to clarify the inclusion of certain COVID-19 
 vaccines covered under the Medicare program without any cost sharing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 16, 2020

     Ms. Spanberger (for herself, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mr. 
 Fitzpatrick, Ms. Houlahan, and Ms. Slotkin) introduced the following 
  bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in 
 addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the CARES Act to clarify the inclusion of certain COVID-19 
 vaccines covered under the Medicare program without any cost sharing.

    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 ``Securing Affordable Vaccines Equally 
for Seniors Act'' or the ``SAVE for Seniors Act''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE OF MEDICARE COVERAGE OF COVID-19 VACCINES 
              WITHOUT ANY COST SHARING.

    Effective as if included in the enactment of the CARES Act (Public 
Law 116-136; 42 U.S.C. 13951), section 3713(d) of such Act is amended 
by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``or 
authorized for emergency use under section 564 of the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3)''.
                                 <all>
```
----

| 1.   | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Company’s financial condition and results of operations as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements included in the Report. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  /s/J. Chris Verenes                             |   | /s/Roy G. Lindburg                              |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| J. Chris Verenes                                                                                                                                                                                  |   | Roy G. Lindburg                                                                                                                                                                                  |
| Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                           |   | Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                          |

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6339]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Application

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following applicant has applied for a permit to conduct certain 
activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to 
section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1531, et seq.).

PRT-826077

Applicant: Wayne P. Steffens, Superior, Wisconsin.

    The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release; and 
take voucher specimens) Hines Emerald Dragonflies (Somatochlora 
hineana) throughout the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Proposed 
activities are for documentation of presence/absence of the species and 
habitat monitoring for the purpose of survival and enhancement of the 
species in the wild.
    Written data or comments should be submitted to the Regional 
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological 
Services Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-
4056, and must be received within 30 days of the date of this 
publication.
    Documents and other information submitted with these applications 
are available for review by any party who submits a written request for 
a copy of such documents to the following office on or before April 14, 
1997: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services 
Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056. 
Telephone: (612/725-3536 x250); FAX: (612/725-3526).

    Dated: March 4, 1997.
John A. Blankenship,
Assistant Regional Director, IL, IN, MO (Ecological Services), Region 
3, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
[FR Doc. 97-6339 Filed 3-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
# C_2022340EN.01005401.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/54

---

Action brought on 19 July 2022 — Hofmeir Magnetics v EUIPO — Healthfactories (Hofmag)

(Case T-452/22)

(2022/C 340/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hofmeir Magnetics Ltd (Witney, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Baur, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Healthfactories GmbH (Saaldorf-Surheim, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Hofmag — Application for registration No 18 107 493

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2022 in Case R 1367/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceeding. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceeding.

Pleas in law

| — | Incorrect restriction of the claimant’s unregistered mark HOFMAG in terms of a designation which does not satisfy the criterion ‘of more than mere local significance’ within the meaning of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Incorrect restriction of the claimant’s unregistered mark HOFMAG in terms of a designation which does not satisfy the criterion ‘of more than mere local significance’ within the meaning of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Failure to take into account the sign ‘Hofmag’ as a commercial designation (as a relevant sign in terms of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council) in relation to Germany/Austria. |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to take into account the sign ‘Hofmag’ as a commercial designation (as a relevant sign in terms of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council) in relation to Germany/Austria.

---