alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019072EN.01002001.xml

| 25.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2018 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Vans (Representation of lines on a shoe)

(Case T-638/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark representing lines on a shoe - Earlier EU trade mark comprised of two stripes on the side of a shoe - Proof of the existence, validity and scope of the protection of an earlier international trade mark - Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(a)(ii) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Legitimate expectations))

(2019/C 72/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Vans, Inc. (Cypress, California, United States) (represented by: M. Hirsch, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2016 (Case R 408/2015-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Deichmann and Vans.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Deichmann SE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Deichmann SE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.

---
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Livestock, Forage and Pasture Management Research Unit: El Reno, OK
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area El Reno, Oklahoma Oklahoma and Central Plains Agricultural Research Center Livestock, Forage and Pasture Management Research Unit People & Locations







Matthew  Schneider
                        Livestock, Forage and Pasture Management Research Unit

                        




                        
                        Agricultural Science Research Technician
                        Phone: (580) 256-7449
                        
                        
                        Fax: (580) 571-6461(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 148 (Thursday, August 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 42902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16690]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-876]


Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Cambrex 
High Point, Inc.

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

SUMMARY: Cambrex High Point, Inc., has applied to be registered as a 
bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer 
to Supplemental Information listed below for further drug information.

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), 
and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to 
the issuance of the proposed registration on or before October 4, 2021. 
Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the 
application on or before October 4, 2021

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this 
is notice that on July 9, 2021, Cambrex High Point, Inc., 4180 
Mendenhall Oaks Parkway, High Point, North Carolina 27265-8017, applied 
to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic 
class(es) of controlled substance(s):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Drug
          Controlled substance             code          Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxymorphone.............................    9652  II
Noroxymorphone..........................    9668  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture the above listed controlled 
substances in bulk for distribution to its customers. No other 
activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.

William T. McDermott,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-16690 Filed 8-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000096 18-JUL-2018 11:41 AM
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 102 Filed: 08/25/04 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:893
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 102 Filed: 08/25/04 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:894
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 102 Filed: 08/25/04 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:895
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 102 Filed: 08/25/04 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:896
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 102 Filed: 08/25/04 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:897
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 102 Filed: 08/25/04 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:898
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 102 Filed: 08/25/04 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:899
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 102 Filed: 08/25/04 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:900
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 102 Filed: 08/25/04 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:901
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 102 Filed: 08/25/04 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:902
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 102 Filed: 08/25/04 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:903
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 102 Filed: 08/25/04 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:904
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 102 Filed: 08/25/04 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:905
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Albert Gooden, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bonomo, J.), rendered July 8, 1982, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a dangerous weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The police had a reasonable basis for stopping defendant’s car, since they observed it traveling at an excessive rate of speed *{see, People v Singleton,*41 NY2d 402; *People v Ingle,*36 NY2d 413). Furthermore, when, upon approaching defendant to ask for his license and registration, Officer Gaynor observed defendant furtively attempting to secrete something in his crotch, the *872officer was presented with a reasonable suspicion of danger so as to warrant the minimal intrusion of a frisk of defendant *(People v Benjamin,*51 NY2d 267). The subsequent seizure of defendant’s gun was, therefore, proper.

Additionally, defendant’s failure to challenge the constitutionality of his prior felony conviction at sentencing constituted a waiver of any allegation of unconstitutionality since he has not shown good cause for his failure to do so (CPL 400.15 [7] [b]).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.
Case: 1:00-cv-07338 Document #: 114  Filed: 05/17/04 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:395

Case: 1:00-cv-07338 Document #: 114  Filed: 05/17/04 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:396

Case: 1:00-cv-07338 Document #: 114  Filed: 05/17/04 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:397

Case: 1:00-cv-07338 Document #: 114  Filed: 05/17/04 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:398

Case: 1:00-cv-07338 Document #: 114  Filed: 05/17/04 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:399

Case: 1:00-cv-07338 Document #: 114  Filed: 05/17/04 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:400

Case: 1:00-cv-07338 Document #: 114  Filed: 05/17/04 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:401
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-56765 and 333-61727) and in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-10697, 333-38871, and 333-62275) of Hyperion
Solutions Corporation of our report dated July 20, 1999 relating to the
financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this
Form 10-K.

/s/  PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

San Jose, California
September 27, 1999
Case: 1:02-cv-06425 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/10/02 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1
Case: 1:02-cv-06425 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/10/02 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2
Case: 1:02-cv-06425 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/10/02 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3
Case: 1:02-cv-06425 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/10/02 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4
Case: 1:02-cv-06425 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/10/02 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5
Case: 1:02-cv-06425 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/10/02 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6
Case: 1:02-cv-06425 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/10/02 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7
Case: 1:02-cv-06425 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/10/02 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8
Case: 1:02-cv-06425 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/10/02 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9
Case: 1:02-cv-06425 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/10/02 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10
#### WEED v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

December 2, 1895.)

Railroad Crossing—Open Gates—Right to Rely on.

One familiar with the locality, and having knowledge of the fact that-a railroad company was not accustomed to operate its gates between certain hours, who crosses the track between those hours, cannot rely on the open gate as an assurance of 'safety.

Appeal from circuit court, Orange county.

Action by James Weed against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company for personal injuries. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, made on the minutes, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.

A. H. F. Seeger, for appellant.

Ashbel Creen, for respondent.

PRATT, J.

This was an action for damages for personal injuries caused by plaintiff being run into by a south-bound train of defendants on the West Shore Railroad. The action was tried before a jury, and a verdict rendered for defendants. The case was submitted to the jury under a fair and unexceptionable charge, and there is no exception in the case disclosing error sufficient to warrant a reversal of the judgment.

The principal point made by the plaintiff to establish his case was that the gate was not manned and worked at the place where the highway crossed the track where the plaintiff was injured. The answer to this proposition, as well as to the cases cited upon this point, is made by the fact that appeared upon the trial, that de*99fendants were not accustomed to operate the gate between 7 o’clock in the morning and 7:30 p. m., and this fact was known to the plaintiff, who was accustomed to cross the railroad at this point; therefore, those cases that hold a failure to shut the gate may be considered by the jury, as mentioned, as proof of negligence and contributory negligence, are not in point upon the case here. All these latter-named cases, which are of a similar character, have been the result of accidents taking place while gates were in operation, and the injury was inflicted upon persons not familiar with the locality.

We think the verdict was fully supported by the evidence, and ought to stand. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
# Official Journal L 88/2008

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 88 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5129 March 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 88

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5129 March 2008

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EC) No 273/2008 of 5 March 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards methods for the analysis and quality evaluation of milk and milk products | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 273/2008 of 5 March 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards methods for the analysis and quality evaluation of milk and milk products

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### In the Matter of Mitchell Miller, a Disbarred Attorney.

—Motion by Mitchell Miller, a disbarred attorney and counselor-at-law for reinstatement as a member of the Bar of the State of New York.

Motion denied. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano, Gibbons and Thompson, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Floyd, Appellant.

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fuchs, J.), rendered February 10, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 15 years to life.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant’s claim of error with respect to the court’s charge and *Sandoval*ruling *(see, People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371), and remarks made by the prosecutor, have not been preserved for appellate review, and a reversal in the interest of justice is unwarranted under the circumstances of this case (CPL 470.05 [2]; *see, People v Maschi,*49 NY2d 784, 786; *People v Sidberry,*109 AD2d 807).

Defendant’s claim that his sentence is excessive lacks merit *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80; *People v Roman,*84 AD2d 851). Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Fiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2174
J. CAROLYN STRINGER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-01-4536-3-17) Submitted: May 12, 2003 Decided: May 21, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Carolyn Stringer, Appellant Pro Se. John Bowman McLeod, HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: J. Carolyn Stringer appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of UNUM Life Insurance Co. on her claim that UNUM breached the terms of her disability insurance contract when it retroactively terminated her disability policy and her claim that the termination was in bad faith. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. , 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). We have reviewed the record and conclude the district court properly concluded UNUM did not breach the contract by retroactively terminating it because Stringer had not met minimum work requirements for coverage. Because UNUM had a contractual right to cancel the policy, Stringer cannot prove bad faith. See Pitts v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co. , 574 S.E.2d 502, 512-13 (S.C. Ct. App. 2002). Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Stringer v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. , No. CA-01-4536-3-17 (D.S.C. filed Sept. 4, 2002; entered Sept. 6, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and3 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
1 Motion GRANTED AND Order filed November 10 , 2016
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 16
- 00884
- CV

____________ IN RE FAIRWAY METHAN OL LLC AND CELANESE LTD. , Relator s

O RIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 270th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015
- 19034



### ORDER
On November 7, 2016, relator s Fairway Methanol LLC and Celanese Ltd., filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. Relator asks this court to order the Honorable Brent Gamble, Judge of the 270th District Court, in Harris County , Texas, to set aside his Order on Plaintiffs’ Mot ion to Compel signed on October 12, 2016 entered in trial court number 2015

- 19034, styled Salazar v. Fairway Methanol2 LLC, et. al ., that requires relators to: (1) remove any and all attorney

- client privilege and work

- product privilege objections to Plaintiffs’ Request for “Any and all incident, accident and/or investigation reports made or filed by you regarding the Occurrence made th e basis of this lawsuit, “any and all statements related to this Occurrence” and “all documents related to any interviews conducted by you ” , and (2) produce documents responsive to this request no later than ten days after the signing of this Order.
On No vember 7, 2016, r elators also filed a motion for temporary order that asks our court to stay the Order pending a decision on the petition for writ of mandamus

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. It appears from the facts stated in the p etition and motion that relator s ’ request for relief requires further consideration and that relator will be prejudiced unless immediate temporary relief is granted. We therefore GRANT relators’ motion and issue the following order:
We ORDER the part of the Order that requires relators to produce documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ request for “Any and all incident, accident and/or investigation reports made or filed by you regarding the Occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit, “any and all statements related to this Occurrence” and “all documents related to any interviews conducted by you ” STAYED until a final de cision by this court on relator s ’ petition for writ of mandamus, or until further order of this court. We request relators to file the documents provided to the trial court for in

camera review under seal with ou r court on or before November 28 , 2016.3 In addition, the court requests Jose Armando Salazar and Rose Salazar , the real parties

- in

- interest, to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before November 28 , 2016

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.4.
PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison , and Donovan

.
Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:1

Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 2 of 24 PageID #:2

Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 3 of 24 PageID #:3

Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 4 of 24 PageID #:4

Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 5 of 24 PageID #:5

Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 6 of 24 PageID #:6

Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 7 of 24 PageID #:7

Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 8 of 24 PageID #:8

Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 9 of 24 PageID #:9

Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 10 of 24 PageID #:10

Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 11 of 24 PageID #:11

Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 12 of 24 PageID #:12

Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 13 of 24 PageID #:13

Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 14 of 24 PageID #:14

Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 15 of 24 PageID #:15

Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 16 of 24 PageID #:16

Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 17 of 24 PageID #:17

Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 18 of 24 PageID #:18

Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 19 of 24 PageID #:19

Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 20 of 24 PageID #:20

Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 21 of 24 PageID #:21

Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 22 of 24 PageID #:22

Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 23 of 24 PageID #:23

Case: 1:03-cv-03872 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/06/03 Page 24 of 24 PageID #:24