alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022380EN.01001302.xml

| 3.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/13

---

Action brought on 29 June 2022 — DVB Bank v SRB

(Case T-401/22)

(2022/C 380/15)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DVB Bank SE (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and W. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment is therefore inadmissible on the ground that it is devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-396/22 Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.

---
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1
 
                         SECURITY CAPITAL PACIFIC TRUST
 
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                         (DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                         1996     1995    1994    1993    1992
                                       -------- -------- ------- ------- -------
<S>                                    <C>      <C>      <C>     <C>     <C>
Net earnings from operations.......... $ 94,089 $ 81,696 $46,719 $23,191 $ 9,037
Add:
  Interest expense....................   35,288   19,584  19,442   3,923   3,147
                                       -------- -------- ------- ------- -------
Earnings as adjusted.................. $129,377 $101,280 $66,161 $27,114 $12,184
                                       ======== ======== ======= ======= =======
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense.................... $ 35,288 $ 19,584 $19,442 $ 3,923 $ 3,147
  Capitalized interest................   16,941   11,741   6,029   2,818     989
                                       -------- -------- ------- ------- -------
    Total fixed charges............... $ 52,229 $ 31,325 $25,471 $ 6,741 $ 4,136
                                       ======== ======== ======= ======= =======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges....      2.5      3.2     2.6     4.0     2.9
                                       ======== ======== ======= ======= =======
</TABLE>
No. 11-10507.

#### Moyer *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
EX-10.10(a)



 Exhibit 10.10(a) 
 June 1, 2013 
 Waypoint Capital Management 

23 Greene St. Suite 210 
 Huntington, N.Y. 11743

 Attn: Mr. Robert Calabretta 
 Re: Management Agreement Renewals 
 Dear Mr. Calabretta: 

We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below (the “Management
Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2014 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 

 

	 	•	 	 Emerging CTA Portfolio L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Waypoint Master Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P. 


 Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Mr. Damian George at the address above or fax to 212-296-6868. If you have any
questions I can be reached at 212-296-1292. 
 Very truly yours, 

 

					
	 CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
	 	
			
	By:	 	 /s/ Damian George
	 	
		 	 Damian George
	 	
		 	Chief Financial Officer & Director	 	
	
	WAYPOINT CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
			
	By:	 	 /s/ Robert E. Calabretta
	 	
		 	Print Name: Robert E. Calabretta	 	

 DG/sr
No. 11-10880.

#### Owens *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED J ASON TROY LANE , A ppellant ,
v. Case No. 5D21

- 1198 LT Case No

. 2020-00902- CF

- 54
STATE O F FLORIDA ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Decision filed May 17, 2022 Appeal from the Circuit Co urt for Putnam County , Howard O

. M c Gillin, Jr., J udge. Matthew J

. M etz, P ublic D efender, a nd Joseph C hloupek, Assistant P ublic Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley M oody, A ttorney G eneral, Tallahassee, an d K risten L

. D avenport, Assistant A ttorney G eneral, D aytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED.

EDWARDS, NARDELLA and WOZNIAK , JJ. , concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           54321
<RECEIVABLES>                                   364815
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                             6125
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                                418
<PP&E>                                            2663
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  439425
<SHORT-TERM>                                        97
<PAYABLES>                                      295733
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                             115856
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                  90
<LONG-TERM>                                       8308
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           149
<OTHER-SE>                                       19192
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    439425
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                 4022
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                              5905
<COMMISSIONS>                                     7740
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                      200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3261
<COMPENSATION>                                    5134
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5485
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        5485
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3703
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

            Certification of Chief Executive and Financial Officer of
               Monument Resources, Inc. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


     I, A.G. Foust, certify that:

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Monument
Resources, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, A.G. Foust, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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, as amended; 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/ A.G. Foust
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Name:  A.G. Foust
                                                Title: Chief Executive and
                                                       Financial Officer
                                                Date:  February 11, 2005
# C_2022418EN.01004701.xml

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/47

---

Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO — Mustang (Checked pattern in beige with white horses)

(Case T-545/22)

(2022/C 418/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hästens Sängar AB (Köping, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson, R. Wessman and S. Ljungblad, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG (Schwäbisch Hall, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union pattern mark representing a checked pattern in beige with white horses — European Union trade mark No 18 180 223

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2022 in Case R 1732/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it annuls the decision of the Cancellation Division based on the conclusion in paragraph 39 of the contested decision that ‘[o]verall the signs [of the proprietor and the cancellation applicant] are similar’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it annuls the decision of the Cancellation Division based on the conclusion in paragraph 39 of the contested decision that ‘[o]verall the signs [of the proprietor and the cancellation applicant] are similar’;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the proprietor. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the proprietor.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

---
# C_2022380EN.01002502.xml

| 3.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/25

---

Action brought on 22 August 2022 — Sastela v EUIPO — Zenergo (Tante Mitzi Caffè CAFFÈ — STRUDEL — BARETTO)

(Case T-510/22)

(2022/C 380/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sastela, proizvodnja peciva in tort, d.o.o. (Ljutomer, Slovenia) (represented by: U. Pogačnik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zenergo d.o.o. (Zgornja Polskava, Slovenia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Tante Mitzi Caffè CAFFÈ — STRUDEL — BARETTO — European Union trade mark No 11 425 394

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2022 in Case R 1413/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the application in this case, reform the contested decision to uphold its appeal to the Board of Appeal and reform the decision of the cancellation division to the effect of setting aside the revocation of the contested trade mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the application in this case, reform the contested decision to uphold its appeal to the Board of Appeal and reform the decision of the cancellation division to the effect of setting aside the revocation of the contested trade mark;

| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision and remit the case to EUIPO for further deliberation; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision and remit the case to EUIPO for further deliberation;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---
# C_2022389EN.01001701.xml

| 10.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/17

---

Action brought on 23 August 2022 — Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO — Schmitzer (HPU AND YOU)

(Case T-511/22)

(2022/C 389/19)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. (Dębica, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sonja Schmitzer (Teltow, 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 figurative mark HPU AND YOU — Application for registration No 18 174 721

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2022 in Case R 1888/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and refer the case back to EUIPO for reconsideration, or, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and refer the case back to EUIPO for reconsideration, or,

| — | alter the contested decision, stating that there are relative grounds for the refusal of registration of trade mark application No 18 174 721 for all goods and services in class 5, 35 and 44 and that the trade mark shall not be registered; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision, stating that there are relative grounds for the refusal of registration of trade mark application No 18 174 721 for all goods and services in class 5, 35 and 44 and that the trade mark shall not be registered;

| — | award the costs in the applicant’s favour. |
| --- | --- |

—

award the costs in the applicant’s favour.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the principle of trademarks similarity assessment; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of trademarks similarity assessment;

| — | Infringement of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 27.2

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS AMENDED SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
THREE MONTHS ENDED 3-31-97 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES THERETO CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000818813
<NAME> BITSTREAM INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      11,109,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,056,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (325,000)
<INVENTORY>                                     37,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,947,000
<PP&E>                                       3,491,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,603,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,594,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,975,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        59,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,465,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,594,000
<SALES>                                      2,522,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,522,000
<CGS>                                          289,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,150,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               172,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                255,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            232,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   232,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>
# C_2023338EN.01002101.xml

| 25.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 July 2023 — Yayla Türk v EUIPO — Marmara Import-Export (Sütat)

(Case T-315/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Sütat - Absolute ground for invalidity - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Right to be heard)

(2023/C 338/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Yayla Türk Lebensmittelvertrieb GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Marmara Import-Export GmbH (Ratingen, Germany) (represented by: T. Moll, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 March 2022 (Case R 1184/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Yayla Türk Lebensmittelvertrieb GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Yayla Türk Lebensmittelvertrieb GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 276, 18.7.2022.

---
#### *A.M.*v. L.B., Appeal of: Stacey L. Shields, Esq.

3347 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/29/2017

2011-00087

(Montgomery)

Affirmed
# C_2022451EN.01002601.xml

| 28.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 451/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 451/26

---

Action brought on 14 October 2022 — Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-643/22)

(2022/C 451/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (Rostov-on-Don, Russia) (represented by: B. Kennelly, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1355 of 4 August 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1354 of 4 August 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (2), insofar as they apply to the applicant. The applicant also seeks his costs.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in determining that the designation criterion had been satisfied. In particular, the Council accepted at face value, without any attempted verification whatsoever, unsubstantiated and largely historic assertions, allegations and even opinions from various media reports of questionable reliability. The Council presented these claims and accusations as fact, despite the many inaccuracies and inconsistencies identified by the applicant in his observations. The Council should have undertaken further investigation and conducted a proper examination of the sufficiency, credibility, and reliability of the material upon which it relied, but failed to do so. In consequence, there is no sufficiently solid factual basis for the 2022 August Sanctions and they should accordingly be annulled.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 204 I, p. 4.

(2)  OJ 2022, L 204 I, p. 1.

---