alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020329EN.01001502.xml

| 5.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Dinamo v EUIPO (Favorit)

(Case T-729/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Favorit - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 329/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dinamo GmbH (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 September 2019 (Case R 985/2019-2) relating to the application for registration of the word sign Favorit as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dinamo GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dinamo GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.

---
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14

- 395 V

Filed: March 18, 2015

Not for P ublication

*************************************

SHERI SWIGERT

, *

*

Petitioner

, *

*

* Damages decision based on stipulation;

v. * influenza (flu) vaccine; transverse myelitis;

* multiple sclerosis

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Amber D. Wilson

, Washington, DC

, for petitioner

. Ryan D. Pyles , Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

On March 17, 2015 , the parties filed the attached stipulation in which they agreed to settle

this case and described the settlement terms. Petitioner allege s that she suffered transverse

myelitis and/or multiple sclerosis that w as caused by her October 11, 2013 receipt of influenza

(“flu ”) vaccine

. Petitioner further allege s that she suffe r ed the residual effects of this injury for

more than six months. Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged

t ransverse myelitis, alleged multiple sclerosis, and/ or any other injury

. Nonetheless, the parties

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned exp lanation for the special master’ s action in this

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal

Claims’ s website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899,

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify a nd

move to delete such information prior to the document ’ s disclosure. If the special master, upon review,

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall

delete such material from public access

.2

agreed to resolve this matter informally

.

The undersigned finds the terms of the stipulation to be reasonable. The court hereby

adopts the parties ’ said stipulation, attached her eto, and awards compensation in the amount and

o n the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the stipulation, the court awards a lump sum of

$131 ,000.00

, representing reimbursement for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C.

§ 300aa

- 15(a) (2006). The award shall be in the form of a check payable to petitioner in the

amount of $131 ,000.00.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the

court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2015 s/ Laura D. Millman

Laura D. Millman

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party , either separately or

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
#### In the Matter of Kenneth W. Cohn (Admitted as Kenneth Wayne Cohn), an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Second Department,

June 9, 1986

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Frank A. Finnerty, Jr.,*for petitioner.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on March 6, 1974. By order of this court dated January 4, 1985, a *463disciplinary proceeding was authorized, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law pending the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding, and the matter was referred to a Special Referee to hear and report.

On June 4, 1985 the respondent was convicted in the County Court, Nassau County, of attempted grand larceny in the second degree, a class E felony *(see,*Penal Law §§ 110.05, 155.35), upon his plea of guilty. On September 10, 1985, the respondent was sentenced to 90 days’ imprisonment and 5 years’ probation, and was directed to pay restitution of $222,870.79.

Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4), the respondent ceased to be an attorney and counselor-at-law upon his conviction of a felony.

Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion is granted. The respondent is disbarred and the clerk of the court is directed to strike his name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law forthwith. The January 4, 1985, order of this court should be vacated to the extent that it authorized a disciplinary proceeding, appointed a Special Referee, and referred the matter for a hearing.

Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano, Gibbons and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Henry Fields, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walsh, J.), rendered October 1, 1981, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, attempted petit larceny, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, possession of burglar’s tools, and criminal possession of a hypodermic instrument (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The defendant was properly convicted of burglary in the second degree. Reading the court’s charge in its entirety, we conclude that the jury was properly instructed on the law regarding both first and second degree burglary. Further, a reading of the record also shows that no violation of the trial court’s suppression order occurred during the testimony of the arresting officer. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Brown, JJ., concur.
MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST II
                    MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING II, L.P.
                      COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
          COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS

                               For the Three Months Ended March 27, 1998
                         ----------------------------------------------------- 
                          Merrill Lynch Preferred     Merrill Lynch Preferred 
                               Capital Trust II         Funding II, L.P.       
                         ------------------------     ------------------------ 
                                               
Earnings                              $6,185,568                 $7,253,513
                                      ==========                 ==========

Fixed charges                         $     -                    $      -

Preferred securities distribution
  requirements                         6,000,000                  6,185,568
                                      ----------                 ----------

Total combined fixed charges and
  preferred securities distributions  $6,000,000                 $6,185,568
                                      ==========                 ==========

Ratio of earnings to combined
  fixed charges and preferred
  securities distributions                  1.03                       1.17


                                    For the Period February 6, 1997 
                                           to March 28, 1997        
                         ----------------------------------------------------- 
                          Merrill Lynch Preferred     Merrill Lynch Preferred  
                               Capital Trust II         Funding II, L.P.       
                         ------------------------     ------------------------ 

Earnings                              $3,711,341                 $4,347,538
                                      ==========                 ==========

Fixed charges                         $     -                    $     -

Preferred securities distribution
  requirements                         3,600,000                  3,711,341
                                      ----------                 ----------

Total combined fixed charges and
  preferred securities distributions  $3,600,000                 $3,711,341
                                      ==========                 ==========

Ratio of earnings to combined
  fixed charges and preferred
  securities distributions                  1.03                       1.17
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Quarterly Report of Premier Holding Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack Gregory, the 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 to my knowledge:





1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







|Date:  May 11, 2010 | Jack Gregory
Chief Executive Officer and Director
|------------------- | -------------------------------------------------
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July 28, 2021

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20

- 1472 Lower Tribunal No. 16

- 3171

________________


### Adriana Monica Mendoza , Appellant,

vs. 

### Tomas Curbelo , Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Marcia B. Caballero , Judge. Hasbun & Mendoza, PLLC and Maribel Mendoza , for appellant. Perez

- Abreu & Martin

- Lavielle, P.A., and Andy W. Acosta and Javier Perez

- Abreu , for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and HENDON and GORDO, JJ. HENDON, J.2 Adriana Monica Mendoza, the Mother, appeals from a September 2020 supplemental f inal j udgment modifying parental responsibility, timesharing, and child support in favor of Tomas Curbelo, the Father. We dismiss that portion of the Mother’s appeal (paragrap h w. of the order on appeal) without prejudice to the filing of an appeal following entry of an order fixing the amount of attorney’s fees and costs. Sejas v. Paredes , 315 So. 3d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (holding a mere finding of entitlement to attorney’s f ees and costs is a non

- final, non

- appealable order). We affirm the remainder of the order on appeal. Sordo v. Camblin , 130 So. 3d 743, 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“ We review a trial court's modification of timesharing for an abuse of discretion, and we must a ffirm if the trial court's order is supported by competent substantial evidence.”). Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.
#### BAUER v. PARKER et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 22, 1907.)

Appeal from Special Term.

Action by Louis Bauer against Henrietta M. Parker, as executrix of John L. Macaulay, impleaded with others. From an order denying a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute, defendants appeal. Affirmed.-

Argued before PATTERSON, P. J„ and INGRAHAM, Mc-LAUGHLIN, HOUGHTON, and SCOTT, JJ.

James C. Foley, for appellants.

H. V. Rutherford, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The order appealed from is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, for the reasons stated on the appeal in this action bv the defendants George S. Hart and others. 106 N. Y. Supp. 877.
# C_2020209EN.01002601.xml

| 22.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO — Döhler (TasteSense)

(Case T-109/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark TasteSense - Earlier EU word mark MultiSense - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2020/C 209/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Döhler GmbH (Darmstadt, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2018 (Case R 1178/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Döhler and Kerry Luxembourg.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joshua M. Perrin, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 916]

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, A.J.), rendered October 28, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of marihuana in the first degree, criminal possession of marihuana in the second degree and criminal possession of marihuana in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the sentence imposed on count two of the indictment and imposing a sentence of a determinate term of *2X!%*years on that count, to run concurrently with the sentences imposed on counts one and three, and as modified the judgment is affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of marihuana in the first degree (Penal Law § 221.55), criminal possession of marihuana in the second degree (§ 221.25) and criminal possession of marihuana in the first degree (§ 221.30). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the three-year determinate term of imprisonment with two years of postrelease supervision imposed on counts one and three is not unduly harsh or severe. Although defendant does not challenge the legality of the sentence imposed on count two, i.e., a three-year determinate term of imprisonment, we cannot allow that illegal sentence to stand *(see People v VanValkinburgh,*90 AD3d 1553, 1554 [2011]). In the interest of judicial economy, we exercise our inherent authority to correct the illegal sentence (see *generally People v Savery,*90 AD3d 1505, 1505 [2011]). We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the sentence imposed on count two and imposing a sentence of a determinate term of imprisonment of 2V2 years on that count, to run concurrently with the sentences imposed on counts one and three. Because defendant has served the maximum term of *2xk*years of imprisonment and has been *1552released from custody, a period of postrelease supervision may not now be imposed on that count *(see People v Williams,*14 NY3d 198, 217 [2010], *cert denied*562 US —, 131 S Ct 125 [2010]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Fahey and Sconiers, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          21,734
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,050
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (393)
<INVENTORY>                                      7,371
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,284
<PP&E>                                           8,480
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,313)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,566
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,801
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,495
<SALES>                                         23,256
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,256
<CGS>                                           14,724
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,724
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,495
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   223
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  46
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,508)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,508)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,508)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.96)


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I,
Douglas R. Young, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of NeoMagic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended August 2, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of NeoMagic Corporation.




Date:
September 15, 2009


By:
                  /s/
      Douglas R. YoungName:
                  DOUGLAS
      R. YOUNGTitle:
                  (Acting)
      Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

I, Kenneth J. Saunders, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
except for the failure to timely file the report, the Quarterly Report of Peregrine Systems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Peregrine Systems, Inc.

Date:
October 18, 2005

| |  |  | /s/KENNETH J. SAUNDERSKenneth J. Saunders
Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
| |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Peregrine Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Peregrine Systems, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 23.1
 
 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-60004 and 333-35450), of our reports dated March 29, 2010 relating to our audits of the financial statements of PacificHealth Laboratories, Inc. and on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the 2009 annual report on Form 10-K.  Our report relating to our audit of the financial statements contains an emphasis of a matter paragraph regarding substantial doubt as to the ability of the Company to continue as a going concern.
 
 
 /s/ Weiser LLP
 
 
 Edison, New Jersey
 March 29, 2010
Case 10-01042 Doc 1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:42:38 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 11
Case 10-01042 Doc 1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:42:38 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 11
Case 10-01042 Doc 1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:42:38 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 11
Case 10-01042 Doc 1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:42:38 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 11
Case 10-01042 Doc 1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:42:38 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 11
Case 10-01042 Doc 1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:42:38 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 11
Case 10-01042 Doc 1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:42:38 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 11
Case 10-01042 Doc 1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:42:38 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 11
Case 10-01042 Doc 1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:42:38 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 11
Case 10-01042 Doc 1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:42:38 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 11
Case 10-01042 Doc 1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:42:38 Desc Main

 Document Page 11 of 11
#### H. REMINGTON & SON PULP & PAPER CO., Respondent, v. REMINGTON, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 20, 1907.)

Action by the H. Remington & Son Pulp & Paper Company against Edward W. Remington.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Case: 1:02-cr-00928 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/25/02 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1
Case: 1:02-cr-00928 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/25/02 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2
Case: 1:02-cr-00928 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/25/02 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3
Case: 1:02-cr-00928 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/25/02 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:4
Case: 1:02-cr-00928 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/25/02 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:5
Case: 1:02-cr-00928 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/25/02 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6