alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023112EN.01004602.xml

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/46

---

Action brought on 10 February 2023 — Ona Investigación v EUIPO — Formdiet (BIOPÔLE)

(Case T-61/23)

(2023/C 112/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ona Investigación, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: T. Villate Consonni, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Formdiet, SA (Alcarras, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for the European Union word mark BIOPÔLE — Application for registration No 18 157 716

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2022 in Case R 1097/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should grant the form of order sought by the applicant and reject the contested trade mark application.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
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  Quarterly  Report  of  NACO  Industries,,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the Quarter Ended  February 29, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Verne E. Bray, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 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 result of  operations of the
Company.

/s/ Verne E. Bray
------------------------
Verne E. Bray
Chief Executive Officer
April 13, 2004

This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 2002, as amended.
PRUETT v. BINGHAM, et al.

No. 34A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 14, 2015.

H. Lee Davis, Jr., Winston-Salem, Attorney at Law, for Bingham, Joel D., et al.

W.O. Brazil, III, Asheville, Attorney at Law, for Mountain Home Fire & Rescue Department, Inc., et al.

Meghann K. Burke, Asheville, Attorney at Law, for Mountain Home Fire & Rescue Department, Inc., et al.

Katherine Marie Barber-Jones, Winston-Salem, Attorney at Law, for Bingham, Joel D., et al.

Michael E. Casterline, Asheville, Attorney at Law, for Brackett, Matthew.

Ann C. Rowe, Winston-Salem, Attorney at Law, for Bingham, Joel D., et al.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 14th of September 2015 by Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiffs:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of September 2015."

Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiffs shall have up to and including the 26th day of October 2015 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
----

(2004/C 33 E/062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0660/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(6 March 2003)

Subject:   Fraud against the EU budget involving 514 companies based in Italy and Luxembourg

Knowing that:

Can the Commission say:

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

The Commission can confirm to the Honourable Member that the facts in question are under criminal investigation in Italy and currently subject to judicial confidentiality (Article 329 of the Italian Criminal Code on preliminary investigations).

Should it emerge that Community funding has been affected, the Member State will have to notify the Commission of that fact, in accordance with the sectoral and general rules, following prior authorisation by the competent judicial authority. The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) could establish from the notification whether there was any damage to the Community budget, as well as gathering information on the companies and individuals involved. At this stage, OLAF has indicated that no investigations are ongoing.

Finally, the Commission states that it has no register of individuals and companies guilty of fraud or attempted fraud against the European Union. However, depending on how the Community funds in question are managed, there are several databases with information on irregularities relating to Community funds.

It should also be noted that, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, it is the Member States which are principally responsible for the financial control of Community funds.

----
STATE v. Omar Jalam COOK.

No. 262P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Omar Jalam Cook, Charlotte, for Cook, Omar Jalam.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of July 2015 by Defendant to Dismiss:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
In re S.J.M.

No. 363A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 19, 2007.

Beverly Basden, Sanford, for Lee County DSS.

Susan J. Hall, Fayetteville, for Father.

Elizabeth Boone, for GAL.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th day of September 2007 by Respondent (Mother) for Extension of Time to File Brief:

> "Motion Allowed. Respondent (Mother) shall have up to and including the 24th day of October 2007 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 19th day of September 2007."
STATE v. HICKS.

No. COA08-393.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Gaston (05CRS51705, 05CRS3250).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error.
DRIGGERS, et al. v. JOYNER, et al.

No. 353P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 27, 2015.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of October 2015 by Defendants for Extension of Time to Respond to Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of October 2015."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 457 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 196
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 457

                          [Report No. 110-79]

To extend the date on which the National Security Personnel System will 
              first apply to certain defense laboratories.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 31, 2007

Mr. Voinovich (for himself, Mr. Brown, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. 
Clinton, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Lott, Mr. Reed, 
 and Mr. Bayh) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

                             June 11, 2007

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the date on which the National Security Personnel System will 
              first apply to certain defense laboratories.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DATE OF APPLICATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY 
              PERSONNEL SYSTEM TO DEFENSE LABORATORIES.

    Section 9902(c)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``October 1, 2008'' each place such term appears and inserting 
``October 1, 2011'' in each such place.
                                                       Calendar No. 196

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 457

                          [Report No. 110-79]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To extend the date on which the National Security Personnel System will 
              first apply to certain defense laboratories.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 11, 2007

                       Reported without amendment
```
ELDER BROACH PROPERTIES, INC. v. McNEEL.

No. COA08-202.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (05CVD6956).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part, Reversed in part.
STATE v. HILL.

No. COA08-417.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (07CRS210305).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error.
# CE2004078EN.01073802.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/738 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/738

---

(2004/C 78 E/0787)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2429/03

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Council

(22 July 2003)

Subject:   State aid to Italian farmers

Subject:

Will the Council say which ‘exceptional circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 88(2), third paragraph, ‘justify’ its decision to approve Italian State aid to Italian milk producers?

If the same ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist in other Member States or new Member States, will the Council approve corresponding State aid in those cases?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2428/03 and E-2429/03

(4 March 2004)

(4 March 2004)

The Council considered, in its decision of 16 July 2003 on the compatibility of the national aid the Italian Republic intends to grant to its milk producers by pre-financing itself the sums owed by these producers to the Community Budget by virtue of the additional levy on milk for the period 1995/1996 to 2001/2002, that there are exceptional circumstances which justify this aid as compatible with the common market in derogation from Article 8 7 of the Treaty.

In this respect, the Council took into account the unique factual and legal situation relating to the operation on the additional levy system in Italy, and in particular the fact that immediate recovery in full of all amounts due would have imposed a heavy financial burden on the individual Italian producers concerned and the need to alleviate the existing social tensions in Italy by allowing them to settle their outstanding debt by means of deferred payment.

The principle of equality is therefore respected since no such exceptional circumstances exist for other Community milk producers. In this respect, both the Council and the Commission stressed in a common statement for the Council's minutes that this Council Decision was justified by an exceptional situation particular to Italy and that its objective was to definitively settle past implementation problems of the additional levy there.

Consequently, both Institutions underlined that this Decision cannot be invoked as a precedent for other possible implementation problems either in Italy or in other Member States.

---