alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020414EN.01003501.xml

| 30.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — nanoPET Pharma v EUIPO — Miltenyi Biotec (viscover)

(Case T-264/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark viscover - Absence of bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001) - Article 53(2)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(2)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2020/C 414/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: nanoPET Pharma GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken and A. Schulz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Miltenyi Biotec BV & Co. KG, formerly Miltenyi Biotec GmbH (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schork, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2019 (Case R 1288/2017-5), concerning invalidity proceedings between nanoPET Pharma and Miltenyi Biotec.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders nanoPET Pharma GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders nanoPET Pharma GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---
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
 Commodity Protection and Quality Research: Parlier, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Units
                        San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Sciences Center
                                    Crop Diseases, Pests and Genetics Research
                                    Water Management Research
                                    National Arid Land Plant Genetic RepositorySearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Parlier, California San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Sciences Center Commodity Protection and Quality Research People & Locations





- Home Page
- Contact Information
- News Articles
- Publications
- Research Projects
- Commodity Fumigation and Residues
- Agrochemical Fate and Transport
- Natural Products Discovery and Utilization
- Chang-Lin Xiao - Research Leader
- Charles Burks
- Dave Obenland
- Joel Siegel
- Spencer Walse

Spencer  Walse
                     

                     Research Chemist


                     Phone: (559) 596-2750
                     
                     

                     Fax: (559) 596-2721
                     

                     9611 S. RIVERBEND AVE.                            
                     
                     

                     PARLIER                       , CA 93648


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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,321,583
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,027,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (34,111)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,119,355
<PP&E>                                       5,069,663
<DEPRECIATION>                               (252,163)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,782,772
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,426,063
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,278
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,120,493
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,782,772
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,199,721
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              (9,376,458)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,158
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (34,111)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (43,151)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (250,841)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    95,320
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (155,521)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (155,521)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        


</TABLE>
#### WILD et al., Respondents, v. VREDENBURG & CO., Appellants.

(Supreme Court,' Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 20, 1907.)

Action by Bertha Wild and another against Vredenburg & Co.

No opinion. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs to abide event.
#### Charles Corey FRANKLIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles A. DANIELS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-1338.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Nov. 15, 2011.

Charles Corey Franklin, Florence, CO, pro se.

Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

HARRIS L. HARTZ, Circuit Judge.

Defendant Charles C. Franklin, a federal prisoner at the United States Peniten*592tiary in Florence, Colorado, filed an application for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, challenging his conviction and sentence in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Colorado District Court dismissed the application because Defendant has an adequate and effective remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We AFFIRM that decision for essentially the reasons stated in the district court’s Order of Dismissal. We DENY Mr. Franklin’s motion to proceed *informa pauperis.*

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doc*592trines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
(121 App. Div. 483.)

#### BERGER v. CRIST.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 4, 1907.)

1. Vendor and Purchaser—Contracts—Defects in Title—Recovery of Purchase Price.

A purchaser of real estate may, on the failure of the vendor to cure defects in the title, because of the insufficiency of an acknowledgment to a deed because of the nonpayment of taxes, and because a mortgage *108cannot be paid off as the contract requires, rescind and recover back the-money paid.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 48, Vendor and Purchaser, §§ 199, 200.]

2. Same.

A detect in a title because of unpaid taxes is not cured by deducting the amount thereof from the price, but the purchaser may rescind and' recover the money paid.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 48, Vendor and Purchaser, § 271.]

Appeal from Municipal Court of New York.

Action by David Berger against Henrietta Crist. From a judgment of dismissal after a trial before a justice without a jury, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

The action was to recover $300 paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on a contract of purchase of real estate.

Argued before JENKS, HOOKER, RICH, MILLER, and GAYNOR, JJ.

Adolph Feldblum, for appellant.

John A. Warren, for respondent.

GAYNOR, J.

The judgment should have been for the plaintiff., The parties met on the contract day, and according to the oral testimony for the defendant at least two objections to the title were made by the plaintiff, viz., that there was a valid judgment lien against the property, and an insufficient acknowledgment to one of the deeds of conveyance in the defendant’s chain of title. That these objections were sufficient was not disputed. The defendant took an adjournment of three days to remove the defects. On the adjourned day she had not done so. She took another adjournment of a week for the same purpose. On that adjourned day she had not obtained a sufficient acknowledgment instead of the invalid one, but had obtained a suspension on appeal of the judgment lien. The plaintiff refused another adjournment and demanded back his deposit. The Justice decided against him on the ground that he had not demanded performance. No such technical point was made by the defendant on the trial; and moreover the evidence is that he did make due demand.

According to the testimony of the plaintiff, and the stipulation in writing of the facts which the parties entered into on the rejection of the title, the plaintiff on the contract day also made two other objections, viz., that the taxes were unpaid, and that the mortgage on. the property could not be paid off at any time as the contract required. These defects were not cured. It is a mistake to suppose that it suffices to deduct the amount of the taxes from the purchase money and leave the trouble of paying the taxes to the purchaser.

The jud'- nent should be reversed.

Judgement the Municipal Court reversed, and new trial ordered; costs to-abide the \.A11 concur.
#### Patrick D. TILLIO, Sr., Appellant v. DAVIS, BENNETT, BARR & SPIESS PENNGRASS ATTORNEYS AT LAW; Vincent’s Hardwood Flooring; Lauren McSorley; Mike Dignazio; Jams Waist; Frank Kane; Piece & Caniglia Attorney.

No. 11-2594.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action.

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 Aug. 18, 2011.

Filed: Sept. 9, 2011.

Patrick D. Tillio, Sr., Ardmore, PA, pro se.

Before: FISHER, BARRY and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Patrick D. Tillio, Sr., appeals pro se from the District Court’s dismissal of his complaint. We will affirm.

Tillio filed suit pro se against a law firm and other defendants. His complaint is difficult to follow, but he appears to seek damages arising from unspecified fraud in connection with the execution of a writ of possession for property located in Ard-more, Pennsylvania, which according to his complaint appears to be the subject of state court proceedings. He also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris (“IFP”). By order entered May 25, 2011, the District Court granted Tillio leáve to proceed IFP and dismissed his complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). As the District Court noted, Tillio’s complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and alleges nothing suggesting that any defendant acted under state law. Tillio appeals.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review the District Court’s dismissal of an IFP complaint as frivolous for abuse of discretion. *See Denton v. Hernandez,*504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992). We perceive no abuse of discretion here. We agree that Tillio’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a) and fails to allege anything suggesting a federal claim. District courts generally should not dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it could be cured by amendment, and the District Court did not address that possibility. *See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp.,*293 F.3d 103, 112-13 (3d Cir.2002). We are satisfied, however, that any amendment would be futile. Tillio has filed at least two other similar complaints against a member of the law firm defendant in this case. (E.D. Pa. Civ. Nos. 04-cv-03704 & 11-cv-00288.) The District Court dismissed the first of these suits in 2004, and we dismissed Tillio’s resultant appeal for failure to prosecute. (C.A. No. 04-3666, Nov. 8, 2004 order.) The District Court also dismissed the second of these suits. We recently affirmed that ruling and noted that leave to amend would have been futile because “[n]one of [Tillio’s] submissions ... reveals any factual or legal basis for a federal claim.” *Til-*
      *514
      *lio v. Spiess,*441 Fed.Appx. 109, 110, 2011 WL 3346787, at * 1 (3d Cir.2011). The same is trae here. If there were any basis for a federal claim, Tillio has had ample opportunity to present it. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
#### Kent DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; San Bernardino Sheriffs Department; Steve Spear, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-55043.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 8, 2011.

Filed July 11, 2011.

James S. Muller, Esquire, Law Offices of James S. Muller, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

James H. Thebeau, Esquire, Deputy County Counsel, San Bernardino, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: B. FLETCHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and R. BREWSTER, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Rudi M. Brewster, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern *301District of California, sitting by designation.

*301MEMORANDUM **

Kent Davis appeals the district court’s conclusion of law, following a bench trial, that the sheriff had probable cause to arrest him for willfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer in the discharge of his duties in violation of Cal.Penal Code § 148(a)(1).

We affirm because the sheriff had probable cause to arrest Davis based upon Davis’ entire pattern of erratic and defiant conduct. The arrest did not punish mere speech. The sheriff had legitimate reasons to request the car keys, including, but not limited to, avoiding damage to the pristine vintage Cadillac during towing; opening the trunk to check if Davis brought his firearm with him; and preventing Davis from fleeing the scene with the car. Davis’s behavior gave the police officer probable cause to believe that Davis obstructed the lawful exercise of authority to impound the unregistered car. *Smith v. City of Hemet,*394 F.3d 689, 696-97 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (“The acts by Smith include twice refusing to take his hands out of his pockets, reentering the home once; repeatedly refusing to put his hands on his head and come down the poreh[;] and, finally, refusing to put his hands on his head and turn around. Each of these acts constituted a violation of § 148(a)(1) sufficient to warrant the filing of a criminal charge.”); *cf. Mackinney v. Nielsen,*69 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir.1995) (no probable cause under § 148(a)(1) when plaintiff “refused to comply for only a few seconds” then “immediately turned around” to see who ordered him to stop writing on sidewalk).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit
10.1


 


This
loan agreement (this “Agreement”) is made on July 23, 2021 by and between 2622325 Ontario Limited, an Ontario corporation
(“Lender”), and Slinger Bag Inc., a Nevada corporation (together with its affiliates, “Borrower”).


 


WHEREAS,
Borrower requires a further infusion of U.S. $500,000 in cash (the “Loan”) in order to finance its operations and Lender
wishes to provide the Loan, subject to the terms and on the conditions of this Agreement;


 


Now,
therefore, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements of the Parties hereinafter set forth, it is hereby
agreed by and between the Parties hereto as follows:


 


1.
Loan. Lender hereby agrees to lend FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND USD ($500,000) in immediately available funds to the Borrower
on July 23, 2021 by wiring the same in accordance with instructions to be provided by the Borrower separately. Borrower agrees to accept
$500,000 as a loan to be repaid within 30 days of receipt of the Loan proceeds or such other date as may be accepted by the Lender in
writing (including by email). The Loan shall bear interest at a rate of 12% per annum on the outstanding amount until repaid in full.
Any payment of cash to be made by Borrower to Lender shall be applied first to accrued, but unpaid, interest and second to the outstanding
principal.


 


2.
Dividends or Distributions. The Parties agree that Borrower shall not be permitted to declare, make or pay any dividend or distribution
unless and until the Loan is repaid in full.


 


3.
Costs and Fees. Each Party will bear its own costs in connection with the entry into this Agreement and any payments to be made
or received hereunder.


 


4.
Amendments and Assignments. This Agreement may not be amended or assigned without the written consent of all Parties.


 


5.
Further Assurances. Each party hereto agrees to execute, on request, all other documents and instruments as the other party shall
reasonably request, and to take any actions, which are reasonably required or desirable to carry out obligations imposed under, and affect
the purposes of, this Agreement.


 


6.
Governing Law and Jurisdiction. This Agreement shall be governed by the substantive law of the State of New York, without application
of any conflict of laws principle that would require the application of the law of any other jurisdiction


 




    	 



    	 



    




 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.


 


	Slinger Bag Inc.	 
	 	 	 
	By:		 
	 	Mike
    Ballardie	 
	 	Chief
    Executive Officer	 
	 	I
    have authority to bind the corporation	 


 


	Agreed
    and 	 
	accepted:	 
	 	 
	2622325
    Ontario Limited	 
	 	 	 
		 
	Name:
    	Elisha
    Kalfa	 
	Title:
    	Authorized
    Signatory
#### Paul J. Price et al., Appellants, v Town of Kent et al., Respondents.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from water contamination, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Beisheim, J.), dated August 19,1983, which, upon the motion of the defendants Putnam County and Putnam County Board of Health to dismiss the complaint as against them for nonjoinder of the State of New York as a necessary party, dismissed the complaint as against all defendants “without prejudice to the *316right of the plaintiffs to pursue their claim against the defendants in the Court of Claims”.

Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied. (See, *Baisley v Town of Kent,*111 AD2d 299.) Thompson, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
Case: 1:02-cv-02443 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/02 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:197
Case: 1:02-cv-02443 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/02 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:198
Case: 1:02-cv-02443 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/02 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:199
Case: 1:02-cv-02443 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/02 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:200
Case: 1:02-cv-02443 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/02 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:201
Case: 1:02-cv-02443 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/02 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:202
Case: 1:02-cv-02443 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/02 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:203
Case: 1:02-cv-02443 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/02 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:204
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Globecomm Systems Inc. Financial Statements, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          12,699                  12,699
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,356                  17,356
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,775                   2,775
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,450                  37,450
<PP&E>                                          12,575                  12,575
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,049                   2,049
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,982                  51,982
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,523                  13,523
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             9                       9
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,995                  38,955
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,982                  51,982
<SALES>                                          6,498                  31,673
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,498                  31,673
<CGS>                                            5,827                  27,950
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,827                  27,950
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,201                   9,703
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,326)                 (5,166)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,326)                 (5,166)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,326)                 (5,166)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.26)                  (0.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.26)                  (0.57)
        



</TABLE>