alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019432EN.01003702.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Rubik’s Brand v EUIPO — Simba Toys (Shape of a cube with surfaces having a grid structure)

(Case T-601/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a cube with surfaces having a grid structure - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Second sentence of Article 75(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now the second sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2019/C 432/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rubik’s Brand Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Szamosi and M. Borbás, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (Fürth, Germany) (represented by: O. Ruhl, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 June 2017 (Case R 452/2017-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Simba Toys and Rubik’s Brand.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Rubik’s Brand Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rubik’s Brand Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.

---
# C_2017437EN.01003301.xml

| 18.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/33

---

Action brought on 27 September 2017 — Anabi Blanga v EUIPO — Polo/Lauren (HPC POLO)

(Case T-657/17)

(2017/C 437/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gidon Anabi Blanga (Mexico, Mexico) (represented by: M. Sanmartín Sanmartín, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Polo/Lauren Company LP (New York, New York, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘HPC POLO’ — Application for registration No 13 531 462

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2017 in Case R 2368/2016-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay the costs of the applicant.

Plea in law

Plea in law

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

—

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

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

ROBERT WEGMANN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-2030 ) ALLSTATE PROPERTY & ) CASUALTY INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed May 18, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Gilbert A. Smith, Jr., Judge. Victor Kline of Greenspoon Marder, P.A., Orlando; David A. Spain and Hans Kennon of Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. Kevin D. Franz and Kansas R. Gooden of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Coconut Creek and Jacksonville, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, BLACK, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC     Document 20      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC     Document 20      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

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

 

Inconnection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Lake Area CornProcessors, LLC (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31,2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Scott Mundt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ Scott Mundt             |
|--------|-----------------------------|
|   | Scott Mundt                 |
|   | Chief Executive Officer     |
|   | Dated: March 31,  2010 |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of New Ulm Telecom, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bill Otis, President and 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. |  | 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.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 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.

|Dated:   August 8, 2006 | By | /s/   Bill Otis                                
|----------------------- | -- | -----------------------------------------------
|                        |    | Bill Otis
President and Chief Executive Officer

---
P:\700\759-133\NOTICE OF ADOPTION FILINGS\Case No.07CV4871-Baione.doc 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

----------------------------------X 

IN RE: WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 21 MC 100 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

----------------------------------X 

CHRIS BAIONE, 07CV 4871 

 Plaintiff, 

- against – 

WSP CANTOR SEINUK, 

 Defendant. 

---------------------------------X 

NOTICE OF WSP CANTOR SEINUK’S 

ADOPTION OF AMENDED ANSWER TO MASTER COMPLAINT

 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendants WSP Cantor Seinuk, as 

and for their responses to the allegations set forth in the 

Complaint by Adoption (Check-Off Complaint) Related to the 

Master Complaint filed in the above-referenced action, hereby 

adopt the Defendants’ Amended Answer to Master Complaint, dated 

January 15, 2008, which was filed in the matter of In re World 

Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 06 CV 

12152. 

 WHEREFORE, WSP Cantor Seinuk Defendant demands judgment 

dismissing the above-captioned action as against each of them, 

together with their costs and disbursements. 

Dated: New York, New York 

 June 16, 2008 

Case 1:07-cv-04871-AKH Document 4 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 1 of 2
P:\700\759-133\NOTICE OF ADOPTION FILINGS\Case No.07CV4871-Baione.doc 

 GOGICK, BYRNE & O’NEILL, LLP 

 By: s/Kevin J. O’Neill____________ 

 Kevin J. O’Neill (KJO-5113) 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

 WSP Cantor Seinuk 

 11 Broadway, Suite 1560 

 New York, New York 10004-1314 

 (212) 422-9424 

Case 1:07-cv-04871-AKH Document 4 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 2 of 2
# C_2018427EN.01007402.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/74

---

Order of the General Court of 18 September 2018 — Dreute v Parliament

(Case T-732/17) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Secondment in the interests of the service - Transfer - No longer further interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate in part - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)

(2018/C 427/100)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Olivier Dreute (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Darie and R. Ignătescu, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, on the one hand, the annulment, first, of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 30 January 2017 transferring the applicant within that institution, secondly, of the decision of the President of the Parliament of 20 July 2017 rejecting the applicant’s complaint and, if necessary, the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 12 July 2017 seconding the applicant, in the interest of the service, to the European Commission and, on the other hand, damages in respect of the harm which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in so far as it seeks the annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 12 July 2017. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in so far as it seeks the annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 12 July 2017.

| 2. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 30 January 2017 and on the decision of 20 July 2017 rejecting the complaint brought by Mr Oliver Dreute against the latter. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 30 January 2017 and on the decision of 20 July 2017 rejecting the complaint brought by Mr Oliver Dreute against the latter.

| 3. | The claim for compensation is rejected as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The claim for compensation is rejected as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 4. | Mr Dreute is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Mr Dreute is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.

---
152 So. 260

#### Willie VINSON v. STATE.

8 Div. 568.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 18, 1934.

Raymond Murphy, of Florence, for petitioner.

Thos. E. Knight, Jr., A *tty.*Gen., opposed.

KNIGHT, Justice.

This cause appears in this court on petition of Willie Vinson for writ of certiorari to review and revise the opinion and judgment of the Court of Appeals. In re Willie Vinson v. State of Alabama, 152 So. 259.

We will not disturb the finding of facts by the Court of Appeals, and that court has applied the law as heretofore pronounced by this court in other similar cases.

The court properly overruled the defendant’s motion to quash the affidavit because of the alleged errors or irregularities in the appearance bond. Looney v. State (Ala. App.) *106140 So. 181; 1 Williams v. State, 113 Ala. 58, 21 So. 463; Walker v. State, 108 Ala. 56, 19 So. 353; Miller v. State, 110 Ala. 69, 20 So. 392. Nor do we find any error was committed by the Court of Appeals in the application of the law to the facts in the case.

Writ 'denied.

ANDERSON, C. X, and THOMAS and BROWN, JX, concur.

1

25 Ala. App. 23.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40301

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN RODRIGUEZ NARVAEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-97-CR-98-1

- - - - - - - - - -

April 19, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Rodriguez Narvaez appeals his sentence following his

guilty plea to possession of more than 50 kilograms of marijuana

with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). 

He contends that the district court erred in denying a threelevel reduction for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. The court denied the reduction because Narvaez

absconded soon after he entered his plea and was not arrested

until several months later. The court did not err in concluding 
No. 98-40301

-2-

that this conduct was of the sort that warranted an enhancement

for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 and that the

acceptance-of-responsibility reduction was thus inappropriate. 

See § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4); United States v. Gonzales, 19 F.3d

982, 983 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Tremelling, 43 F.3d

148, 152 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2017402EN.01005501.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/55

---

Action brought on 10 October 2017 — Link Entertainment v EUIPO — García-Sanjuan Machado (SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS & EVENTS)

(Case T-694/17)

(2017/C 402/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Link Entertainment, SLU (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sandra García-Sanjuan Machado (Barcelona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS & EVENTS’ — European Union trade mark No 12 672 853

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2017 in Case R 1758/2016-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and find that the cancellation of EU trade mark No 12 672 853 ‘SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS & EVENTS’ for Classes 35 and 41 is unfounded; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and find that the cancellation of EU trade mark No 12 672 853 ‘SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS & EVENTS’ for Classes 35 and 41 is unfounded; and

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal and the invalidity proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal and the invalidity proceedings.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation No 2017/1001, in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation No 2017/1001, in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation.

---
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ENACTED BYSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-Fof Companhia Energética de Minas Gerais—CEMIG (the “Company”) for the periodended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Djalma Bastos de Morais, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/    | Djalma  Bastos de Morais |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  | Djalma  Bastos de Morais |
|   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer  |
|        |        |                          |        |  |

 

Date:                    May 25,2005

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
[926 NE2d 257, 899 NYS2d 753]

#### In the Matter of Nora S. Anderson.

Decided April 5, 2010

*814OPINION OF THE COURT

On the Court’s own motion, it is determined that the suspension of Honorable Nora S. Anderson, from the office of Surrogate, New York County, imposed by order of this Court dated December 29, 2008 and effective January 1, 2009 (11 NY3d 894 [2008]), is hereby terminated.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Pigott and Jones. Taking no part: Judge Smith.
Exhibit 32.1
  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 Songzai International Holding Group, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-K /A for the year ending December 31, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Hongjun Li, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify
as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350
of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:
  (1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and
  (2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company at the dates and
for the periods indicated.
 
 /s/Hongjun
      LiHongjun
      Li
              President
              April
      23 , 2008
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-19-00087-CV

IN RE WILLIAM R. NORTON

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
2

O RDER

On September 20, 2019, William R. Norton filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking 

an order from this Court requiring the trial court to vacate its August 21, 2019, amended order 

granting Lasagna Vaughn’s motion for new trial and to enter judgment on the jury verdict. 

On October 16, 2019, Norton filed a motion for temporary relief requesting that this Court 

enter a temporary stay of all trial court proceedings pending this Court’s ruling on Relator’s 

petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to Rule 52.10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10. On October 16, 2019, Vaughn filed her response to Relator’s motion 

for temporary relief and to stay all proceedings in the trial court. Vaughn specifically opposes the 

request for stay as it applies to the previously noticed deposition of her surgeon, Ellis Cooper III, 

M.D., on Thursday, October 24, 2019,1 but agrees with the remainder of the temporary stay 

request. 

After reviewing the petition for writ of mandamus, the motion for temporary relief, and the 

response to the motion for temporary relief, this Court is of the opinion that the relief requested in 

the motion for temporary relief should be granted, in part. Accordingly, all proceedings in the trial 

court are stayed pending this Court’s decision on the petition for writ of mandamus, with the 

specific exception of the deposition of Ellis Cooper, III, M.D., previously noticed for October 24, 

2019. That deposition is not subject to this temporary relief order. 

 1

Vaughn attached the affidavit of her counsel, Michael E. Heygood, to her response to Norton’s motion for temporary 

relief, wherein Heygood stated that, “On October 4, 2019, Plaintiff Lasagna Vaughn, by and through her lawyers, 

spent $1,500 related to the deposition of Dr. Ellis Cooper. While there will be additional expenses related to the taking 

of this deposition, this $1,500 is non-refundable.” 
3

Now, therefore, it is ORDERED that all proceedings in trial court cause number 17C1213-

202 in the 202nd Judicial District Court of Bowie County, Texas, with the specific exception of 

the October 24, 2019, deposition of Ellis Cooper, III, M.D., shall be stayed, pending this Court’s 

decision on Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: October 17, 2019