alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018152EN.01003201.xml

| 30.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2018 — Marriott Worldwide v EUIPO — Graf (Representation of a winged bull)

(Case T-151/17) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing a winged bull - Earlier EU and national figurative marks representing a griffin - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Earlier copyright protected by national law - Article 53(2)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(2)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 152/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Marriott Worldwide Corp. (Bethesda, Maryland, United States) (represented by: A. Reid, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Johann Graf (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: S. Salomonowitz, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2017 (Case R 165/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Marriott Worldwide and Mr Graf.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 January 2017 (Case R 165/2016-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 January 2017 (Case R 165/2016-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Marriott Worldwide Corp.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Marriott Worldwide Corp.;

| 3. | Orders Mr Johann Graf to bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Johann Graf to bear his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.

1

---
# C_2005073EN.01000201.xml

| 23.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/2

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(2005/C 73/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

Date of adoption of the decision:

Member State: Italy (Marche)

Aid No: N 555/03

Title: ‘Measures to provide infrastructure and services in the freight sector and to restructure road haulage’

Objective: Combined transport — The scheme aims at shifting the balance of the freight system by supporting combined transport and intermodality, in particular by fostering the carriage of goods by rail and by short sea shipping

Legal basis:

Legge regionale n. 25/99, Interventi per la realizzazione di infrastrutture e di servizi nel settore del trasporto merci e la ristrutturazione dell'autotrasporto; D.G.R. n. 1874 del 29.10.2002, rifinanziamento per l'annualità 2002; proposta di deliberazione della giunta regionale relativa al rifinanziamento 2003

Legge regionale n. 25/99, Interventi per la realizzazione di infrastrutture e di servizi nel settore del trasporto merci e la ristrutturazione dell'autotrasporto; D.G.R. n. 1874 del 29.10.2002, rifinanziamento per l'annualità 2002; proposta di deliberazione della giunta regionale relativa al rifinanziamento 2003

Budget: EUR 879 216,23

Aid intensity or amount:

| (a) | 15 % of the eligible costs for the construction of parking, assistance areas and combined transport terminals |
| --- | --- |

(a)

15 % of the eligible costs for the construction of parking, assistance areas and combined transport terminals

| (b) | 15 % of eligible costs for the installation and upgrading of computer systems |
| --- | --- |

(b)

15 % of eligible costs for the installation and upgrading of computer systems

| (c) | 30 % of additional costs (40 % for SMEs) for the acquisition of equipment designed for combined transport and new road tractors |
| --- | --- |

(c)

30 % of additional costs (40 % for SMEs) for the acquisition of equipment designed for combined transport and new road tractors

Duration: Three years (2002-2004)

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids

---
#### In the Matter of Andrew William V. Westchester County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Chantal Jean G., Appellant. (And Another Proceeding.)

Submitted December 12, 2011;

decided February 9, 2012

Reported below, 2011 NY Slip Op 63243(U).

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see 17*NY3d 947 (2011)].
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2277 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1715 Linnerud Drive in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, as the ‘‘Fire Captain 

Cory Barr Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 10, 2019 

Mr. POCAN (for himself, Ms. MOORE, Mr. KIND, Mr. GALLAGHER, Mr. 

GROTHMAN, Mr. STEIL, and Mr. SENSENBRENNER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1715 Linnerud Drive in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, as the ‘‘Fire Captain Cory Barr Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FIRE CAPTAIN CORY BARR POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 1715 Linnerud Drive in Sun 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2277 IH

1 Prairie, Wisconsin, shall be known and designated as the 

2 ‘‘Fire Captain Cory Barr Post Office Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Fire Captain Cory 

7 Barr Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
` 
 

 

**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 this Quarterly Report of Steele Recording Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mack Steele, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

By:   */s/ Mack Steele*

       Mack Steele

       Chief Executive Officer

       Chief Accounting Officer

 

Dated:  May 3, 2008

  

 

 

 
`
* The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2424
DONALD G. CROMER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KRAFT FOODS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-03-346-3) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 25, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. * Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald G. Cromer, Appellant Pro Se. Hamlet Sam Mabry, III, James Derrick Quattlebaum, HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina; Susan Pyle Dion, MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina; Joel H. Spitz, Christy E. Phanthavong, MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Donald G. Cromer appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his employment discrimination complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeCromer v. Kraft Foods, Inc. , No. CA-03-346-3 (W.D.N.C. filed Sept. 15, 2003 & entered Sept. 16, 2003; filed Oct. 23, 2003 & entered Oct. 24, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# FCM DATA MAY 2006
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AFH Holding
      III, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ending June 30, 2008, I, Amir F.
      Heshmatpour, President of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:





1.
            Such
                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2008,
                fully
                complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
                Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
            The
                information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
                quarter ending June 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects,
                the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.








Dated:
      August 19, 2008





/s/
      Amir F. Heshmatpour


Amir
      F.
      Heshmatpour


President


(Principal
      Financial Officer)
# C_2020010EN.01001901.xml

| 13.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/19

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Schiaffini Travel SpA v Comune di Latina

(Case C-322/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Public passenger transport services by rail and by road - Article 5 - Award of public service contracts - Article 5(2) - Direct award - Definition of ‘internal operator’ - Article 8(2) - Transitional arrangements)

(2020/C 10/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Schiaffini Travel SpA

Defendant: Comune di Latina

Interveners: Cilia Italia Srl, ATI costituita da Rossi Bus SpA e da Nuova Tesei Bus Srl, Régie autonome des transports parisiens (RATP)

Operative part of the order

Article 5 and Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 must be interpreted as meaning that Article 5(2) of that regulation is not applicable to procedures opened with a view to the award of public service concession contracts taking place before 3 December 2019.

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

---
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

*Name of Committee:*                         Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         May 25, 2001.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Holiday Inn Hotel, 30 Whalley Avenue, New Haven, CT 06511.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Michael A Oxman, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4112, MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301/435-3565, oxmanm@mail.nih.gov.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine, 93.306; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 16, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-12923  Filed 5-22-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# C_2017195EN.01004401.xml

| 19.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/44

---

Action brought on 28 April 2017 — Robert Bosch v EUIPO (Simply. Connected.)

(Case T-251/17)

(2017/C 195/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Robert Bosch GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: S. Völker and M. Pemsel, lawyers)

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 figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Simply. Connected.’ — Application for registration No 14 814 057

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2017 in Case R 948/2016-5

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 pay the costs, including the cost of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the cost of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 64 of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 64 of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

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

—

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

---
##### 



Exhibit 14.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements (Forms S-8 No. 333-110865,
No. 333-110857 and No. 333-90266) of Technip of our report
dated April 4, 2005 (except for the Notes 30-32 to the
consolidated financial statements for which the date is June 23,
2005), with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Technip included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year
ended December 31, 2004. Neuilly-sur-Seine, France
June 30, 2005 ____________________________________ BARBIER FRINAULT & AUTRES
ERNST & YOUNG
Represented by Gilles Puissochet
# C_2018013EN.01002701.xml

| 15.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/27

---

Action brought on 30 October 2017 — Lincoln Global/EUIPO (FLEXCUT)

(Case T-736/17)

(2018/C 013/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lincoln Global, Inc. (Santa Fe Springs, California, United States) (represented by: K. Piepenbrink, 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 ‘FLEXCUT’ — Application for registration No 15 111 198

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 August 2017 in Case R 2225/2016-4

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 pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

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

—

Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Exhibit 10.2
 EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT
AND NONCOMPETITION AGREEMENT
  RECITALS
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 AGREEMENT
 NOW, THEREFORE,




---



##### 



ARTICLE I
 EMPLOYMENT
 Section 1.1 . Employment& Position .
 Section 1.2 . Duties .
 Section 1.3 . Term of Employment .
 ARTICLE II
 COMPENSATION
 Section 2.1 . Base Salary .
 Section 2.2 . Variable Compensation .
 2




---



##### 



Section 2.3 . Equity Incentive
 Special Grants
 New Hire Restricted Stock Units
 Non-Qualified Stock Options.
 Section 2.4 . Other Benefits .
  3




---



##### 



Section 2.5 . Employment Separation .
 Severance Benefits
   4




---



##### 



provided
  5




---



##### 



For Cause
 Disability
 Voluntary Resignation by Executive
 Cessation of Severance Benefits
 Section 2.6 Limitation on Payments .
 6




---



##### 



ARTICLE III
 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
 Section 3.1 . Confidential Information .
 Section 3.2 . Ownership of Records, Etc .
 7




---



##### 



Section 3.3 . Injunctive Relief .
 ARTICLE IV
 COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE
 Section 4.1 . Recitals .
 Section 4.2 . Covenant Not to Compete .
  8




---



##### 



Section 4.3 . No Solicitation of Customers or Employees .
    Section 4.4 . Severability of Provisions .
 Section 4.5 . Injunctive Relief .
 Section 4.6 . Equitable Tolling .
 9




---



##### 



ARTICLE V
 GENERAL PROVISIONS
 Section 5.1 . Assignment .
 Section 5.2 . Sole and Entire Agreement .
 Section 5.3 . Waivers .
 Section 5.4 . Amendment .
 Section 5.5 . Separability .
 Section 5.6 . Time Is of the Essence .
 Section 5.7 . Duration of Obligations .
 Section 5.8 . Attorneys Fees .
 10




---



##### 



Section 5.9 . Captions; Definitions .
 Section 5.10 . Applicable Law .
 Section 5.11 . Confidentiality .
 Section 5.12 . Voluntary Agreement and Legal Counsel .
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 RSC HOLDINGS INC. AND RSC EQUIPMENT
RENTAL, INC.
    
    
    
    EXECUTIVE: Juan CorsilloBy:
    
    /s/ Erik Olsson
    
    
    
    /s/ Juan CorsilloErik Olsson 
President and CEO
    
    
    
    Juan Corsillo
 11
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Time Equities Associates, LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>William McKenith, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Tenant, as limited by his briefs, appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Heela D. Capell, J.), dated January 29, 2019, as granted landlord's motion for summary judgment of possession in a holdover proceeding and denied a permanent stay of execution of the warrant of eviction.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Heela D. Capell, J.), dated January 29, 2019, modified, with $10 costs, landlord's motion for summary judgement of possession denied, and matter remanded to Civil Court for further proceedings.</p><p>Landlord's motion for summary judgment should have been denied. Landlord's proof failed to establish, prima facie, a pattern of unjustified rent defaults on the tenant's part sufficient to constitute a breach of a substantial obligation of the stabilized tenancy (<i>see</i> Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] ยง 2524.3[a]; <a href="../2012/2012_22255.htm" target="_blank"><i>see also Chama Holding Corp. v Taylor</i>, 37 Misc 3d 70</a> [App Term, 1st Dept 2012]). While the record shows that landlord commenced seven nonpayment proceedings over a seven year period, the number of nonpayment actions commenced is relevant only in the context of the entire circumstances surrounding the alleged withholding of rent (<i>see Greene v Stone</i>, 160 AD2d 367, 368 [1990]). Here, at least two of the nonpayment proceedings were settled by so-ordered stipulations requiring landlord to make repairs (<a href="../2005/2005_51764.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Hudson St. Equities v Circhi</i>, 9 Misc 3d 138</a>[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51764[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2005]), a third proceeding was not pursued by landlord, and another proceeding was commenced after a holdover proceeding was dismissed. Thus on this record, it cannot be said as a matter of law that tenant breached a substantial obligation of the tenancy.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: February 7, 2020<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>