alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018152EN.01001601.xml

| 30.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/16

---

Appeal brought on 13 February 2018 by Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 November 2017 in Case T-687/16: Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-104/18 P)

(2018/C 152/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (represented by: J. Güell Serra, E. Stoyanov Edissonov, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Joaquín Nadal Esteban

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare invalid the contested EUTM No. 9917436; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare invalid the contested EUTM No. 9917436; and

| — | order Joaquín Nadal Esteban and EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Joaquín Nadal Esteban and EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court stated in the judgment under appeal as regards the assessment of the conditions for the application of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No. 207/2009 (1) that it was apparent from the judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 June 2009, Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli, C-529/07, EU:C:2009:361, that bad faith presupposed the existence of a likelihood of confusion and that it consequently required the goods and services at stake to be similar or identical.

1

The appellant claims that it does not follow from the judgment in Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli that bad faith on the part of the applicant for registration presupposes the existence of a likelihood of confusion between the marks/signs of the parties, but that the existence of such a likelihood of confusion is just an example of factors that can be taken into account, and not a sine qua non condition for the application of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No. 207/2009.

sine qua non

The appellant thus alleges that, by finding that Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No. 207/2009 presupposed or required the existence of a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public and thus similarity or identity in the goods and services at stake, the General Court misinterpreted Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli and misapplied Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No. 207/2009. It consequently erred in law.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1).

1

---
#### Julia A. Latalardo, Appellant, v Town of Clarkstown et al., Respondents.

[876 NYS2d 115]—

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals (1), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Berliner, J.), dated December 11, 2007, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant New York Bituminous Products Corp. which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and the cross motion of the defendant Town of Clarkstown for the same relief, and (2) from an order of the same court dated May 27, 2008, which denied her motion for leave to reargue her opposition to the cross motion of the defendant Town of Clarkstown.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated May 27, 2008 is *914dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying leave to reargue; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated December 11, 2007 is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiff tripped and fell on a curb adjacent to a parking lot owned by the defendant Town of Clarkstown. The defendant New York Bituminous Products Corp. (hereinafter NYBP) had repaired cracks in the parking lot more than one year before the plaintiffs accident. The Supreme Court, inter alia, awarded summary judgment dismissing the complaint to both defendants insofar as asserted against them.

The Town established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with proof that it did not have prior written notice of the alleged defect *(see Koehler v Incorporated Vil. of Lindenhurst,*42 AD3d 438 [2007]; *Silburn v City of Poughkeepsie,*28 AD3d 468, 469 [2006]; *Adams v City of Poughkeepsie,*296 AD2d 468 [2002]). In response, the plaintiff alleged that the prior written notice requirement was inapplicable because the Town created the defect through an affirmative act of negligence. However, the ultimate assertions in the unsworn expert report relied upon by the plaintiff were unsupported by any evidentiary foundation and, therefore, were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp.,*99 NY2d 542, 544 [2002]; *Alger v CVS Mack Drug of N.Y., LLC,*39 AD3d 928, 929 [2007]; *Guldy v Pyramid Corp.,*222 AD2d 815, 816 [1995]).

Moreover, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response to NYBP’s showing that it owed no duty to the plaintiff *(see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs.,*98 NY2d 136, 141-142 [2002]). Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Balkin and Belen, JJ., concur.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C HARLES M . PIPER , Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. DOM INGO URIB E, Jr., W arde n, R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 10-56677

D.C . No. 2:05-c v-05984-AHM -JC M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia A . Howa rd M atz , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 25, 2014 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN a

nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd R AKOFF, Se nior Distric t Judge . *** 

# FIL E D SEP 02 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble Je d S. R akoff, Se n ior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.C ha

rle s Pipe r a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his pe tition for ha be a s c orpus, brought pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2254.

I Pipe r c onte nds tha

t the sta te c ourts’ re

je c tion of his fe de ra l due proc e ss c la im

— pre m i s e d on the tria l c ourt’ s a l lowa nc e of a n am e n dm e nt to a dd a

c ount that ha d be e n dismisse d at a

pre lim ina

ry he aring—

wa s c ontra

ry to or a n unre a s ona

ble a p plic ation of c l e arly

e sta blishe d fe de ra l la

w. 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d). An indepe nde nt re vie w of the re c ord re ve a l s a re a sona ble justific ation for thesta t e c ourts’ de c ision. Se eHime s v . Thompson , 336 F.3d 848, 853 (9th C ir. 2003). The pre l im ina ry he a ring tra n sc ript, re vie we d by

the tria l judge , sugge s ts tha t the dism isse d c ount w as “ shown by the e vide nc e ta

ke n at the pre lim ina

ry e xam ination,” C a l . Pe na l C ode § 1009; se ealso Pe ople v . Graff , 87 C a l. R

p tr. 3d 827, 838 (C t. App. 2009). Thus, e ve n if we a ssum e tha

t § 1009 e sta

b l ishe s a libe rty inte re st prote c te d by

the Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt, the sta te c ourts m i ght re a s ona bly have c onc lude d tha

t Pipe r wa s not deprive d of suc h right in a n

“ arbitra ry ” m anne r. Se e Hic k

s v . Ok lahoma , 447 U.S. 343, 346 (1980). II Pipe r m a inta ins tha

t the sta te c ourts’ re

je c tion of his ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im

— p re m i se d on his c ounse l’ s fa ilure on a ppe a l to c h a lle n ge the 2am e ndm e nt— wa s a n unre a s ona

ble a pplic ation of Stric k

land v . W a shington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). B ut be c a use the sta

te c ourts m ight re a sona

bly have c onc lude d that the am e ndm e nt

did not viola

te sta te la w, the y m i ght re a sona

b ly have de c ide d a lso tha t the fa ilure to c ha lle nge the am e ndm e nt on a ppe a l wa s not c o nstitutiona lly ine ffe c tive . Se eW

ildman v . J

ohnson , 261 F.3d 832, 840 (9th C ir. 2001). AFFIRM E D.

3
Exhibit C
Nodal Exchange, LLC Rulebook Appendix C: Reporting Levels, Accountability Levels and Position Limits

Single Month All Month

‘Spot Month
Accountability Accountability

Position Limit (lots)

Level (lots) Level (lots)
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

---

# FORM 8-K

---

# CURRENT REPORT

# PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Date of Report (date of earliest event reported): August 2, 2006

---

CNS, Inc.
(Exact name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

Delaware
(State Or Other Jurisdiction Of Incorporation)

|0-16612                  | 41-1580270                          
|------------------------ | ------------------------------------
|(Commission File Number) | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

|7615 Smetana LaneEden Prairie, MN        | 55344     
|---------------------------------------- | ----------
|(Address Of Principal Executive Offices) | (Zip Code)

(952) 229-1500
Registrants Telephone Number, Including Area Code

---

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to
simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (seeGeneral
Instruction A.2. below):

|o |  | Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)
|- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|o |  | Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
|- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|o |  | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
|- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|o |  | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))
|- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





---

Items under Sections 1 and 3 through 7 are not applicable and therefore
omitted.

# Item 2.02    Results Of Operations And Financial Condition.

The Company hereby furnishes a press release issued on August 2, 2006
disclosing material non-public information regarding its results of operations for the quarter ended June 30, 2006. A copy of the
press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1.

# Item 8.01    Other Events

On August 2, 2006, the Company issued a press release, attached hereto as
Exhibit 99.2, announcing a seven-cent per share quarterly dividend payable September 8, 2006 to shareholders of record as of
August 25, 2006.

# Item 9.01    Financial Statements And Exhibits

|Exhibit No. |  | Description
|----------- |  | -----------

|99.1 |  | Press Release issued on August 2, 2006.
|---- |  | ---------------------------------------

|99.2 |  | Press Release issued on August 2, 2006.
|---- |  | ---------------------------------------

# SIGNATURE

Pursuant to the requirements
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized.

| | CNS, INC.
| | ---------
|
| | By:      
| |          
|

Date:   August 2, 2006

---
Exhibit 10.13



Summary Sheet for Executive Officer Compensation



Base Salary



The following table sets forth the current base salaries of IntriCon Corporations CEO, CFO and each of the executive officers who will be named in the Summary Compensation Table incorporated by reference into IntriCon Corporations Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 from the proxy statement that will be filed in connection with the 2007 annual shareholders meeting (the Named Executive Officers).



Name and Principal Position
        2007 AnnualBase SalaryMark S. Gorder,
President and Chief Executive Officer
        $312,000Scott Longval,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
        $130,000Steven M. Binnix,
Vice President and General Manager of RTI Electronics
        $156,000Christopher D. Conger, Vice President, Research and Development
        $145,600Michael P. Geraci,
Vice President, Sales and Marketing
        $156,000Dennis L. Gonsior,
Vice President, Global Operations
        $145,600




Bonuses



The Compensation Committee also approved the 2007 Bonus Plan (the Bonus Plan), which is not set forth in a written agreement. Pursuant to the Bonus Plan, each of the Named Executive Officers is eligible to receive a cash bonus based on the Corporation exceeding certain earnings per share target amounts for the fiscal year 2007 (calculated after giving effect to any bonuses accrued under the Bonus Plan). Depending upon the earnings per share target amount, Mr. Gorder is eligible to receive a bonus up to 150% of his base salary and each of the other Named Executive Officers are eligible to receive a bonus up to 75% of their respective base salary.



Plans and Other Arrangements



The Named Executive Officers are also eligible to:




        Participate in the 2007 Bonus Plan;





        Participate in the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan; and





        Participate in the Companys broad-based benefit programs generally available to its salaried employees, including health, disability and life insurance programs, and qualified 401(k) plan.






---
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 this Report of AVAX Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Francois R. Martelet, Principal Executive Officer and Principal 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 to the best of 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.








/s/ Francois R. MarteletFrancois R. MarteletPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer andPrincipal Financial Officer)May 23, 2008


---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 893 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 893

        To modify certain provisions of law relating to torture.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 2009

  Mr. Nadler of New York (for himself, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Conyers, Mr. 
Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Boucher, 
   Mrs. Capps, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Clay, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Doggett, Mr. 
 Fattah, Mr. Filner, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Hodes, Mr. Holt, Mr. Honda, Ms. 
 McCollum, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Ms. Norton, Mr. Pastor 
of Arizona, Mr. Paul, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, Mr. Scott 
   of Virginia, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Sherman, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Van 
  Hollen, Mr. Welch, Mr. Wexler, and Mr. Wu) introduced the following 
  bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in 
    addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To modify certain provisions of law relating to torture.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``American Anti-Torture Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES APPLICABLE TO 
              INDIVIDUALS UNDER CONTROL OR CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES 
              GOVERNMENT.

    Section 1002 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (title X of 
Public Law 109-148; 10 U.S.C. 801 note; 119 Stat. 2739) and section 
1402 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (title XIV of Public Law 
109-163; 10 U.S.C. 801 note; 119 Stat. 3475) are amended to read as 
follows:
    ``(a) In General.--No person in the custody or under the effective 
control of the United States shall be subject to any treatment or 
technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United 
States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations.
    ``(b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect 
to any person in the custody or under the effective control of the 
United States pursuant to a criminal law or immigration law of the 
United States.
    ``(c) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
affect the rights under the United States Constitution of any person in 
the custody or under the physical jurisdiction of the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
From: Espinoza-Vera, Barbara

To: coa4notices

Cc: Espinoza-Vera, Barbara

Subject: Mandate Receipt Acknowledgement - Case No. 04-14-00198-CR [ DATE 6/10/2015 ]

Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:43:14 AM

RE: Case No. 04-14-00198-CR [ DATE 6/10/2015 ]

Pursuant to Rule 51.2(a)(1) T.R.A.P., I hereby acknowledge receipt of the mandate of the

 Fourth Court of Appeals via this email response.
EXHIBIT 10.3

          DESCRIPTION OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR CASH COMPENSATION TERMS

Non-employee directors will be paid a total of $1,500 per day for each day their
services are required, including such parts of a day required for traveling to
any meeting, event, etc. for which their participation has been requested on
behalf of the Company, and additionally be reimbursed for all reasonable travel
expenses incurred as a result of their participation. Non-employee directors
also will be paid $500 for conference call participation.
! "!#$%&$#'!#(&)*(#"  +(#&"!##,"!# &	"-.#!$%/000000000000000000000000000

&+$!1$#!0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  2%!+$($ 3	 2 3	 34%$(!#5!%,$%%6"7 2%!+3$#-''8""8,,/000000000002%!+3(&.#!

4	292:;94 4%$(!#!%,$%%6".&*'((!7

&+$!1$#!*%($!"*%<'!"'!#(

=>?@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLDM

NOO?EPDQ     GHIJRLDM

SE@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLTM

NTPDFC>SE@AC>EBUVW=XYZQ>=[DF\>  GHIJ]ILDM

UVW=X^_>?\>FC`YZQ>=[DF\>   GHIJ]IL[M

 *%*'&(00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  

64&"*#4%$(!#!%,.&"*#.&*'((!7

=>?@ABACD@AEF     GHIJaLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>c   GH]JadLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFUeDO=QDccGHIJaLTM

NOO?EPDQ     GHIJdLDM

NOO?EPDQU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>cGH]JadLfM

SEP>QW>?APD@AP>g?ETZC@SE@ABACD@AEF  GHIJ]aLDM

UeDOUZf_AccAEFGdhJR

  $%4&"*#$'i0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 

4&"*#&'($!"	!"#!(-.&"*#&%$#"*%($!"*%<'!"'!#(/

=>?@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFjDT>NPDAQDfQ>@Ek?DT>W>@>?_AFD@AEF GHIJKLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>c   GH]JaHLDM

W>QAc@AF\LSEXO>FVF@>?>c@M   GHIJKLDM

NOO?EPDQ     GHIJRLDM

NOO?EPDQjDT>NPDAQDfQ>@Ek?DT>W>@>?_AFD@AEF GHIJRLDM

NOO?EPDQU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>cGH]JaHLfM

NOO?EPDQN_>FT_>F@c@E>FZ_>?D@>TD\?ACZQ@Z?DQO?ETZC@cGHIJHLDMlGHIJRLDM

mSEFnjD@>?ADQN\?ACZQ@Z?DQYZQ>=[DF\>oGHIJHLfMLRM

SE@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLTM

  $%$'-(/ 4&"*#-(/< #"i000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

*%*'&(0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

pqrstuvwsxyqz{{|

}

~qrv|qrvsx



}

|~uqrsxy|xrsv
# C_2010152EN.01001401.xml

| 11.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/14

---

Corrigendum to Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 136 of 26 May 2010
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 136 of 26 May 2010

2010/C 152/05

On page 32:

for:

| ‘CEN | EN ISO 13849-1:2008
  Safety of machinery - Safety-related parts of control systems - Part 1: General principles for design (ISO 13849-1:2006) | 8.9.2009 | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| EN ISO 13849-1:2008/AC:2009 | 8.9.2009’ | | |

‘CEN

EN ISO 13849-1:2008

Safety of machinery - Safety-related parts of control systems - Part 1: General principles for design (ISO 13849-1:2006)

8.9.2009

EN ISO 13849-1:2008/AC:2009

8.9.2009’

read:

| ‘CEN | EN ISO 13849-1:2008
  Safety of machinery - Safety-related parts of control systems - Part 1: General principles for design (ISO 13849-1:2006) | 8.9.2009 | EN ISO 13849-1:2006
  EN 954-1:1996 | 31.12.2011 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| EN ISO 13849-1:2008/AC:2009’ | | | |

‘CEN

EN ISO 13849-1:2008

Safety of machinery - Safety-related parts of control systems - Part 1: General principles for design (ISO 13849-1:2006)

8.9.2009

EN ISO 13849-1:2006

EN 954-1:1996

31.12.2011

EN ISO 13849-1:2008/AC:2009’

---