alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014052EN.01004101.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/41

---

Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Bolloré (BLUECO)

(Case T-684/13)

2014/C 52/78

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd (Borehamwood, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Pechan and S. Körber, 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: Bolloré SA (Érgue Gaberic, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2013 in Case R 2029/2012-1 and alter it to the effect that the appeal is well founded and the opposition is therefore to be rejected in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2013 in Case R 2029/2012-1 and alter it to the effect that the appeal is well founded and the opposition is therefore to be rejected in its entirety;

| — | Order OHIM and Bolloré SA, should the latter intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM and Bolloré SA, should the latter intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘BLUECO’ for goods in Class 12 — Community trade mark application No 9 724 675

Community trade mark concerned:

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

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘BLUECAR’ for goods in Class 12 — Community trade mark No 4 597 621

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

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

<ARTICLE>       5
<CIK>           1065419
<NAME>          KEY COMPONENTS FINANCE CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000
<CURRENCY>      USD

<S>                          <C>          <C>          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                12-MOS       12-MOS       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            JUN-30-2000  DEC-31-1999  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>               JAN-01-2000  JAN-01-1999  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                 JUN-30-2000  DEC-31-1999  JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                        1            1            1
<CASH>                            11,867        4,171            0
<SECURITIES>                           0            0            0
<RECEIVABLES>                     21,914       19,455            0
<ALLOWANCES>                       (516)        (511)            0
<INVENTORY>                       25,309       22,372            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  62,312       61,237            0
<PP&E>                            29,204       27,509            0
<DEPRECIATION>                  (10,216)      (8,471)            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   179,849      180,558            0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             26,869       20,201            0
<BONDS>                           80,000       80,000            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0            0            0
<PREFERRED>                            0            0            0
<COMMON>                               0            0            0
<OTHER-SE>                        24,075        9,411            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     179,849      180,558            0
<SALES>                           79,934            0       69,824
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  79,934            0       69,824
<CGS>                             46,442            0       41,767
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     64,872            0       57,422
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   (411)            0        (176)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       5            0          132
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 6,848            0        7,275
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    1,309            0        5,303
<INCOME-TAX>                       1,026            0        1,811
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  283            0        3,492
<DISCONTINUED>                   (3,525)            0          421
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0            0            0
<CHANGES>                              0            0            0
<NET-INCOME>                     (3,242)            0        3,913
<EPS-BASIC>                            0            0            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0            0            0
<FN>
<F1>
No EPS for the Company has been calculated as its common stock is
privately held
</FN>



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 124 (Monday, June 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35230-35231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17252]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act. Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking 
activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 24, 1998.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Lois Berthaume, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713:
    1. CCF Holding Company, Jonesboro, Georgia; to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of 
Heritage Bank, Jonesboro, Georgia.
    2. SunTrust Banks, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, and SunTrust Banks of 
Florida, Inc., Orlando, Florida; to merge with Citizens Bancorporation, 
Inc., Marianna,

[[Page 35231]]

Florida, and thereby indirectly acquire Citizens Bank of Marianna, 
Marianna, Florida, and Gladsen State Bank, Chattahoochee, Florida.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Philip Jackson, Applications 
Officer) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1413:
    1. Pilot Grove Savings Bank Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Pilot 
Grove, Iowa; to acquire 1.82 percent of the voting shares of Pilot 
Bancorp, Inc., Pilot Grove, Iowa, and thereby indirectly acquire Pilot 
Grove Savings Bank, Pilot Grove, Iowa.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 24, 1998.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-17252 Filed 6-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


                  We have issued our report dated July 30, 2002, accompanying
the consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report
of Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended
June 30, 2002. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said
report in the Registration Statements of Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. and
subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-19288, effective December 23, 1987; File
No. 33-26065, effective February 18, 1988; File No. 33-32984, effective January
12, 1990; File No. 33-38914, effective February 8, 1991; File No. 33-38914,
effective September 26, 1994 and File No. 333-18515, effective December 20,
1996) and Forms S-3 (File No. 333-60987, effective August 21, 1998, File No.
333-32144, effective March 10, 2000, File No. 333-58506, effective April 23,
2001, File No. 333-65580, effective August 3, 2001 and File No. 333-73796,
effective November 20, 2001).



                                         /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
September 13, 2002
# C_2013086EN.01002701.xml

| 23.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/27

---

Action brought on 6 February 2013 — GOLAM v OHIM — Glaxo Group (METABIOMAX)

(Case T-62/13)

2013/C 86/45

Language in which the application was lodged: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sofia Golam (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Trovas, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Glaxo Group Ltd (Greenford, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | uphold the present action, so as to annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 October 2012 in Case R 2089/2011-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present action, so as to annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 October 2012 in Case R 2089/2011-2;

| — | reject the opposition of the other party before the Board of Appeal and grant the application lodged by the applicant in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition of the other party before the Board of Appeal and grant the application lodged by the applicant in its entirety;

| — | order the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘METABIOMAX’, for goods in Classes 5, 16 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 8885261

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 in opposition: The Community word mark ‘BIOMAX’ which has been registered under No 2661858, for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 32.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partly upheld.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division partly annulled.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
No. 10-626.

#### Cesar Xaver Barros, Petitioner v. Shirley Moore Smeal, Acting Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 1139, 131 S. Ct. 943,

178 L. Ed. 2d 755,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 542.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
# DLA motorcyclists share tips for riders, drivers to keep each other safe on the road

/ Published May 20, 2016
Fort Belvoir, Virginia, DLA Installation SupportDLA EnergyDLA Public AffairsDistraction.Gov      - Constantly look around at nearby traffic, not just ahead of you.
      - Wear protective clothing, including a full helmet, boots and thick gloves.
      - Check the bike before you ride, especially the air in the tires.
      - Consider using flashing LED tail lights.
      - Use the turn signal, and don’t be afraid to use the horn.
      - Don’t weave in and out of traffic, and don’t ride between cars (illegal in many states).
      - Assume drivers don’t see you.
      - Ride unimpaired.  
      - Keep the headlight on at all times for greater visibility.
      - Watch out for gravel, sand and wet leaves.
      - Don’t rely on your mirrors when changing lanes; turn your head to check the blind spot.
      - Give motorcycles extra room. 
      - Stay off the phone, and keep your eyes on the road.
      - Use the turn signals.
      - Know the hand and arm turn signals you may see motorcyclists (and bicyclists) use.
      - Stay in the middle of your lane.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s website
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 99 (Friday, May 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 28370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13868]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, June 15, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference 
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-13868 Filed 5-20-98; 12:54 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
No. 10-5191.

#### Matthew J. Nasuti, Petitioner v. Merit System Protection Board.

562 U.S. 908, 131 S. Ct. 393,

178 L. Ed. 2d 170,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7126.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 29.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1701]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-1183-000]


New Century Services, Inc.; Notice of Filing

January 20, 1998.
    Take notice that on December 23, 1997, New Century Services, Inc., 
on behalf of Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power Company, Public Service 
Company of Colorado, and Southwestern Public Service Company 
(collectively companies), tendered for filing an Umbrella Service 
Agreement under their Joint Open Access Transmission Service Tariff for 
Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service between the Companies and 
Minnesota Power & Light Company.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Practice (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214.) All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before February 2, 1998. 
Protests will be considered to be taken, but will not serve to make 
protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a 
party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on 
file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1701 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Public Safety: A Shared Responsibility
 
  By Russell K. Pitts, Installation Antiterrorism Officer
   We share everyday observations with our neighbors,
colleagues, family, and friends on a routine basis. Throughout the week, things become the norm as
we talk to the same people and travel the same paths.In those same travels and discussions with
co-workers, we may observe something that just doesn’t seem right or is out of
place.  Defense Logistics Agency Installation Support at Richmond’s Security
and Emergency Services wants to hear about those unique observations. So if you see something you know shouldn't be
there or someone's behavior that doesn't seem quite right, say something! Only youknow what is out of the
ordinary.  “See Something, Say Something” is the simple message behind
the DLA iWatch Program designed by DLA to engage the workforce in protecting
our workplace.Program success is built
around awareness, education, reporting and strong security-workforce
partnerships.  Awareness starts with understanding the indicators of
terrorism, terrorism-related crime, and other suspicious activity so we, as
employees, are able to share or report key information to DLA security officials
before an incident occurs. An informed,
alert workforce plays a critical role in keeping our installation safe.  Suspicious activity can be defined is any observed behavior
that could indicate criminal activity, terrorism or potential terrorism-related
activity, including, but not limited to:  Unusual items or situations: a vehicle parked in
    an odd location, a package/briefcase is unattended, a window/door is open that
    is usually closed.
    Eliciting information: a person questions
    individuals at a level beyond curiosity about a building’s purpose, operations,
    security procedures and/or personnel, shift changes, etc. (Think about your operational
    security training and apply it here.)
    Observation/surveillance: someone pays unusual
    attention to facilities or buildings beyond a casual or professional interest;
    this includes extended loitering without explanation (particularly in concealed
    locations); unusual, repeated, and/or prolonged observation of a building
    (e.g., with binoculars or smart phone); taking notes or measurements; counting
    paces; sketching floor plans, etc.  These activities could be innocent, but it is law
enforcement’s responsibility to determine whether the behavior warrants
investigation. The examples described above
have been compiled based on studies of pre-operational aspects of successful
and thwarted terrorist events over several years.  Public safety is everyone's responsibility. If you see suspicious activity, report it to
local law enforcement, your supervisor, or through the iWatch e-mail system.  Describe specifically what you observed, including:  Who or what you saw
    When you saw it
    Where it occurred
    Why it's suspicious
    If there is an emergency, call 9–1–1.
    Non-emergency – e-mail:dlaavniwatch@dla.mil
#### People v Tague

1st Dept: 144 AD3d 576 (NY)

denied 3/3/17 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)
No. 10-7340.

#### Sammie L. Booker-El, Petitioner v. Bill K. Wilson, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison.

562 U.S. 1151, 131 S. Ct. 937,

178 L. Ed. 2d 777,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 468.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
No. 10-6425.

#### Luis A. Rodriguez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 988, 131 S. Ct. 430,

178 L. Ed. 2d 335,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8200.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 612 F.3d 1049.
# C_2016068EN.01001502.xml

| 22.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Córdoba — Spain) — María Auxiliadora Arjona Camacho v Securitas Seguridad España SA

(Case C-407/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation - Discriminatory dismissal - Article 18 - Compensation or reparation for the loss and damage actually sustained - Deterrent effect - Article 25 - Penalties - Punitive damages))

(2016/C 068/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Córdoba

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: María Auxiliadora Arjona Camacho

Applicant:

Defendant: Securitas Seguridad España SA

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for the loss and damage sustained as a result of discrimination on grounds of sex to be the subject of genuine and effective compensation or reparation in a way which is dissuasive and proportionate, that article requires Member States which choose the financial form of compensation to introduce in their national legal systems, in accordance with detailed arrangements which they determine, measures providing for payment to the person injured of compensation which covers in full the loss and damage sustained.

---

(1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.

1

---
Exhibit 32


                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In connection with the Annual Report of Energy Conversion Devices, Inc.
     (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005, as
     filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
     "Report"), Robert C. Stempel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
     Stephan W. Zumsteg, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively,
     do each hereby certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
     2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that based on his 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.


     /S/ Robert C. Stempel
     ------------------------------
     Robert C. Stempel
     Chief Executive Officer
     September 13, 2005


     /S/ Stephan W. Zumsteg
     ------------------------------
     Stephan W. Zumsteg
     Chief Financial Officer
     September 13, 2005










                                      150