alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Peter F. Cappellino et al., Appellants, v Rite-Aid of New York, Inc., Respondent.

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, defendant’s motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: The court erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for libel. The sole issue is whether the words complained of are susceptible of a defamatory interpretation. The words were contained on a sign prominently displayed behind the video rental counter at defendant’s store in Buffalo for several months, despite plaintiffs’ request that the sign be removed or placed in a less prominent location. The sign stated:

"donot rent

TAPES TO #S

492, 493,

494, 495 —

CAPPELLINO —

MEMBERSHIP IS VOIDED —

REVOKE THE

CARDS PLEASE.”

The numbers refer to plaintiffs’ membership cards, which had been surrendered when plaintiffs voluntarily resigned from the rental program.

A writing is defamatory if it exposes a person to public *935contempt, ridicule, aversion or disgrace, tends to induce an evil or unsavory opinion of him, or affects him in his profession by imputing fraud, dishonesty, misconduct or unfitness *(Rinaldi v Holt, Rinehart & Winston,*42 NY2d 369, 379, *rearg denied*42 NY2d 1015, *cert denied*434 US 969; *Tracy v News-day, Inc.,*5 NY2d 134, 135-136). Whether particular words are defamatory presents a legal question to be resolved by the court in the first instance *(Aronson v Wiersma,*65 NY2d 592, 593; *Tracy v Newsday, Inc., supra).*The court must decide whether there is a reasonable basis for drawing the alleged defamatory conclusion *(James v Gannett Co.,*40 NY2d 415, 419, *rearg denied*40 NY2d 990). If the statements are reasonably susceptible of a defamatory connotation, it becomes the jury’s function to say whether that was the sense in which the, words were likely to be understood by the ordinary and average reader *(Silsdorf v Levine,*59 NY2d 8, 12-13, *cert denied*464 US 831; *James v Gannett Co., supra).*The court must neither strain to interpret the statements in their mildest and most inoffensive sense nor strain to find a defamatory interpretation when none exists *(Cohn v National Broadcasting Co.,*50 NY2d 885, 887, *cert denied*449 US 1022; *James v Gannett Co., supra; November v Time, Inc.,*13 NY2d 175, 178).

Applying those principles, we conclude that the words are reasonably susceptible of a defamatory interpretation. An average reader might understand the words to impute untrustworthiness or uncreditworthiness to plaintiffs, if not some affirmative wrongdoing such as fraud or conversion. Plaintiffs’ submissions on the motion establish that such imputation of fraud or other wrongful conduct tended to subject them to public ridicule and could have affected them in their trade or business. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Den-man, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.
Translation of Supplementary Agreement dated in June 2008



 Exhibit 10.46 

Supplementary Agreement on Equity Investment in Jilin Mingyang Datong 

Party A: Guangdong Mingyang Wind Power Technology Co., Ltd. 

Party B: Jilin Datong Group Co., Ltd. 

Party A and Party B have indicated in the Cooperation Agreement for Wind Power Equipment Manufacturing Industry between Guangdong
Mingyang Wind Power Technology Co., Ltd. and Jilin Datong Group Co., Ltd. signed on April 27, 2008 that Party A shall cooperate with Party B to set up “Jilin Mingyang Datong Wind Power Technology Co., Ltd.” with a registered capital of RMB
100 million, in which, Party A contributes intangible assets of RMB 60 million and monetary fund of RMB 20 million, and Party B contributes land and monetary fund. 

Through friendly negotiations, their contributions to the registered capital of Jilin Mingyang Datong Wind Power Technology Co., Ltd. are
adjusted as follows: 
 I. The registered capital of Jilin Mingyang Datong Wind Power Technology Co., Ltd. shall be RMB 25
million. Party A contributes monetary fund of RMB 20 million, accounting for 80% equity; and Party B contributes land and monetary fund of RMB 20 million, accounting for 20% equity, in which, RMB 5 million is its registered capital and RMB 15
million is capital reserve. 
 II. Party A contributes monetary fund of RMB 20 million which has been examined and verified by
Reanda Certified Public Accountants Co., Ltd Branch of Jilin on May 9, 2008. 
 III. Party B contributes two lands and monetary
fund. The first land covers an area of 28,408.63 square meters, with the Land Certificate Number: GuoYong (2008) No. 220204006645. Its unit price is RMB 160 per square meter, and the amount is RMB 4,545,380.8. And the second land covers an area of
19,511.70 square meters, with the Land Certificate Number: GuoYong (2008) 220204007351. Its price is RMB 3,124,212. So the total amount of the abovementioned two lands is RMB 7,669,592.8, which has been used for handling the Land Certificate in the
name of “Jilin Mingyang Datong Wind Power Technology Co., Ltd.” as a part of contribution of Party B. But the residual RMB 12,330,407.2 shall be contributed by Party B within 3 months from the day on which this Agreement is reached.

 IV. If Party B can not complete its investment within the specified time, both parties will accordingly adjust the proportion
of Party B to the registered capital of Jilin Mingyang Datong Wind Power Technology Co., Ltd. according to the proportion of Party B’s actual capital contribution to the total capital contribution. 

V. This Agreement is made in octuplicate, each party holding four copies respectively. Furthermore, this Agreement will come into effect
upon the seals of both parties and the signatures of their legal representatives. 
 Party A: Guangdong Mingyang Wind Power Technology Co., Ltd.
(seal) 
 Legal Representative:



 

Date:      MM      DD      YY 

Party B: Jilin Datong Group Co., Ltd. (seal) 

Legal Representative:



 

Date:      MM      DD      YY
# C_2019004EN.01002601.xml

| 7.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Devin v EUIPO — Haskovo (DEVIN)

(Case T-122/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Cancellation proceeding - European Union word mark DEVIN - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Geographical name - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 4/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Devin AD (Devin, Bulgaria) (represented by: B. Van Asbroeck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Di Natale and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Haskovo, Bulgaria)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2016 (Case R 579/2016-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Devin AD and Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 December 2016 (Case R 579/2016-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 December 2016 (Case R 579/2016-2);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Devin AD; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Devin AD;

| 4. | Orders Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.

---
# C_2018042EN.01003101.xml

| 5.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/31

---

Action brought on 30 November 2017 — United Wineries v EUIPO — Compañía de Vinos Miguel Martín (VIÑA ALARDE)

(Case T-779/17)

(2018/C 042/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: United Wineries, SA (Cenicero, Spain) (represented by: J. Oria Sousa-Montes, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compañía de Vinos Miguel Martín, SL (Cigales, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: United Wineries, SA

Applicant for the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘VIÑA ALARDE’ — Application for registration No 13 390 521

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 in Case R 281/2017-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action, together with its annexes, admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action, together with its annexes, admissible;

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 42(2) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 42(2) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
NEX SEF-2018-R-8

August 3, 2018

Submitted via CFTC Portal

Division of Market Oversight

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: NEX SEF Limited – Regulation 40.6 Rule Certification – Revised Fee Program

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “Act”) and Section 40.6(a) of the 

regulations of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”), NEX SEF Limited (“NEX 

SEF” or the “SEF”) hereby notifies the Commission that it is publishing a revised “Fee Program,” which 

includes NEX SEF’s fee schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) and discount programs. 

The Fee Program has been revised to update certain discount programs fees. No other substantive 

changes are being made to the Fee Schedule or discount programs as part of this revised Fee Program.

A clean copy of the Fee Program is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and a marked copy of the Fee Program 

against the current version is attached hereto as Exhibit B. A request for confidential treatment of the Fee 

Program is being simultaneously submitted to the Commission and a copy of that request for confidential 

treatment is included with this submission. 

The Fee Program will become effective on August 17, 2018.

NEX SEF certifies that the revised Fee Program complies with the requirements of the Act and the rules 

and regulations promulgated thereunder. NEX SEF has reviewed the swap execution facility core 

principles (“Core Principles”) as set forth in the Act and has determined that the Fee Program complies 

with the requirements of impartial access in Core Principle 2 and Commission Regulation 37.202 because 

all fees and any discounts will be applied on an impartial, fair and non-discriminatory manner, and the 

Fee Program will be made transparent to all Participants. In compliance with Core Principle 2 and 

Commission Regulation 37.200, the Fee Program does not incentivize manipulative trading or market 

abuse or impact NEX SEF’s ability to perform its trade practice and market surveillance obligations under 

the Act, and NEX SEF’s Market Regulation staff will continue to monitor trading to prevent manipulative 

trading and market abuse. The Fee Program also complies with the requirements for monitoring and 

trade processing in Core Principle 4 and Commission Regulation 37.401, and the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements in Core Principle 10 and Commission Regulations 37.1000 and 37.1001. NEX 

SEF has implemented systems to track Fee Program participants’ transactions to ensure proper fee 

discounts are applied. 

NEX SEF is not aware of any substantive opposing views expressed with respect to this filing and 

certifies that, concurrent with this filing, a copy of this submission was posted on the NEX SEF website 

and may be accessed at:

http://www.nexsef.com/. 
2

Please contact the undersigned at (212) 521-4609 with any questions regarding this matter.

Very truly yours,

Nirup Ramalingam, Chief Operating Officer

NEX SEF LIMITED

2 Broadgate

London EC2M 7UR

United Kingdom

ACTIVE 234532777v.1
# C_2018022EN.01005301.xml

| 22.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/53

---

Action brought on 13 November 2017 — CMS Hasche Sigle v EUIPO (WORLD LAW GROUP)

(Case T-756/17)

(2018/C 022/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CMS Hasche Sigle Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten und Steuerberatern mbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P.-C. Thielen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘WORLD LAW GROUP’ — Application for registration No 14 667 844

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 August 2017 in Case R 329/2017-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | overturn the contested decision regarding the trade mark application No 14 667 844 insofar as the trademark application is rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

overturn the contested decision regarding the trade mark application No 14 667 844 insofar as the trademark application is rejected;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs as well as the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs as well as the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (b) Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (b) Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(2) Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(2) Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2020137EN.01001601.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 January 2020 — České dráhy a.s. v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-538/18 P and C-539/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 20(4) - Inspection decisions - Duty to state reasons - Reasonable grounds for finding an infringement of competition rules - Evidence lawfully gathered - Inspection ordered on the basis of evidence obtained from a previous inspection)

(2020/C 137/20)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: České dráhy a.s. (represented by: K. Muzikář, advokát, J. Kindl, advokáti)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, G. Meessen, P. Němečková and M. Šimerdová, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the appeals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the appeals;

| 2. | České dráhy a.s. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

České dráhy a.s. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.

---
Exhibit 32.01  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Omnitek Engineering Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Werner Funk, Chief Executive Officer and I, Janice M. Quigley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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 result of operations of the Company.   Dated: May 11, 2011 /s/ Werner Funk By:  Werner Funk Its:  President and Secretary     Dated: May 11, 2011 /s/ Janice M. Quigley By: Janice M. Quigley Its:  Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

 Pursuant to the provisions of subsection (d) of section 10 of Public Law 92-463, as amended by section 5 of Public Law 94-409, notice is hereby given that a closed meeting of the DIA Science and Technology Advisory board has been scheduled as follows:

# DATES:

January 30, 2001 (0800 am-1600 pm).

# ADDRESSES:

The Defense Intelligence Agency, 200 MacDill Blvd, Washington, DC 20340.

# DATES:

January 31 2001 (0800 am-1600 pm).

# ADDRESSES:

National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) Headquarters, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Victoria J. Prescott, Director/Executive Secretary, DIA Science and Technology Advisory Board, Washington, D.C.20340-1328 (202) 231--4930.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The entire meeting is devoted to the discussion of classified information as defined in section 552b(c)(1), title 5 of the U.S. Code, and therefore will be closed to the public. The Board will receive briefings on and discuss several current critical intelligence issues and advise the Director, DIA, on related scientific and technical matters. 

Dated: January 10, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 01-1275  Filed 1-16-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-01-M
Exhibit
32.2




SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION (CFO) 1350




CHINA
AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC.




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO




18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,




AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report
of China Automotive Systems, Inc., the “Company”, on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof, the “Report”, I, Jie Li, Chief Financial 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:




(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.




Date:
March 26, 2009





/s/
      Jie LiJie
      LiChief
      Financial
Officer
#### Marjorie A. Griffiths, Appellant, v Kenneth Lindemann, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillary, J.), entered February 4, 1988, which, upon a jury verdict, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff sustained injuries after falling in the defendant’s backyard. The sole theory contained in the complaint was that after she began to fall and "[i]n an attempt to protect herself as she was falling, [she] placed her right hand down and severely cut her wrist on [a] sheet metal strip”. She alleged that the resulting injuries were caused solely by the "negligence of the defendant in maintaining said dangerous and unguarded condition”. In her bill of particulars, the plaintiff alleged that the "[defendant was negligent in maintaining a dangerous and unguarded condition: to wit a sharp sheet metal strip * * * separating the defendant’s walkway and garden”. No other theory of liability was contained in any of the pleadings. At the beginning of the trial, the plaintiff attempted to introduce a new theory of liability — that the fall was caused by an uneven walkway surface — and she made a motion to conform the pleadings to the proof. The trial court denied the motion. We find that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying this "change of theory” amendment in the course of the opening statement.

It is well established that a court shall freely grant a party leave to amend his pleadings upon terms as may be just *(see, Fulford v Baker Perkins, Inc.,*100 AD2d 861). Moreover, *656absent some articulable prejudice to the nonmoving party, amendments to the pleadings are to be freely given (CPLR 3025 [b]). At bar, the plaintiffs attempt to vary the theory of liability, based as it was upon new factual assertions, would have prejudiced the defendant. Instead of the originally pleaded theory in regard to the placement of the sheet metal which caused the injuries, the amendment would have permitted testimony regarding the alleged negligence of the design of the concrete walkway. Accordingly, the trial court cannot be said to have improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the application *(cf., Becker v City of New York,*106 AD2d 595).

We find the remainder of the plaintiffs contentions to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JAMES LEROY THOMAS,

Petitioner

v.

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF

FRANKLIN COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH

OF PENN.,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 74 MM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27 th day of September , 2023, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED, and the “Motion to Petition the Court for Redress of

Grievance” is DENIED.