alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2008 – Tomorrow Focus v OHIM – Information Builders
(Tomorrow Focus)**

**(Case T-90/06)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark Tomorrow Focus – Earlier Community figurative mark FOCUS – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 14, 37)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2006 (Case R 116/2005-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Information Builders (Netherlands) BV and Tomorrow Focus AG. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Tomorrow Focus AG |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark Tomorrow Focus for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42 – Application No 2382455 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Information Builders (Netherlands) BV |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | Figurative mark Focus for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 42 (Community mark No 68585) |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition upheld; application dismissed for Classes 9 and 42 |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Contested decision set aside; application dismissed for certain goods and services in Classes 9 and 42; application dismissed as to the remainder |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Tomorrow Focus AG to pay the costs. |
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 21
                          Subsidiaries (as of 12/31/99)

Subsidiaries owned by Dime Bancorp, Inc.

Dime Capital Trust I
Dime Capital Trust II
The Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB
Branchview, Inc.
Lakeview Mortgage Depot, Inc.
Namis Insurance Agency, Inc.

Subsidiaries owned by The Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB

Accord Agency, Inc.
Accord Realty Management Corporation
Acorn Properties Inc.
Anchor Properties of New Jersey, Inc.
Anchor Property Corp.
Anchor Systems Corp.
ASB Agency, Inc.
69-30 Austin Holding Corp.
Beech Real Estate Management Inc.
BFED I Corp.
555 Biltmore, Inc.
200 Boston Post Inc.
Capitol View Inc.
Case Optics, Inc.
Cedar Real Estate Management Corp.
426 Central Inc.
Colonial Bristol Inc.
DFI Property I L.L.C.
The Dime Agency, Inc.
Dime Capital Partners, Inc.
Dime Commercial Corp.
Dime Consulting Group, Inc.
Dime Cre, Inc.
Dime Florida Consolidation Corp.
Dime Mortgage of New Jersey, Inc.
Dime NJ Agency, Inc.
Dime Securities, Inc.
DNJ Agency, Inc.
The E-F Battery Accord Corporation
Fairfield Financial Holdings Inc.
Fameslinc, Inc.
Fayette Properties of New Jersey, Inc.
F.C. Ltd.
Garden Management Co., Inc.
Garrett Park Estates, Inc.
Granny Road Land Corp.
Harmony Agency, Inc.
Heritage Community Service Corp.
Imco Capital Co., Inc.
Inservco, Inc.
Lakeview Land Corp.
Lakeview Investment Services, Inc.
Lawrence Avenue Corp.
Lincoln Barry Gardens Acquisition Corp.
Lincoln Realty Capital, Inc.
Lincoln RRE Corporation
Lincoln Tudor Court Acquisition Corp.
Lincoln Ventures Group Ltd.
L.V.S. Corporation
Maple Real Property Management Inc.
Medford Associates, Inc.
Mid Country Inc.
NAMCO Asset Management Inc.
NAMCO Securities Corp.
NAMIS Insurance Agency of Massachusetts, Inc.
NAMIS Insurance Services of Kentucky, Inc.
NAMIS Insurance Services of Nevada, Inc.
NAMIS Insurance Services of Texas, Inc.
78 New Linc Corporation
Nickel Purchasing Company, Inc.
North American Insurance Agency of Ohio, Inc.
North American Mortgage Company
North American Mortgage Insurance Services
North Properties, Inc.
Northeast Appraisals, Inc.
Northshore Consolidation Corp.
847218 Ontario Limited
847219 Ontario Limited
847220 Ontario Limited
847221 Ontario Limited
620-622 Pelhamdale Avenue Owners Corporation
Pembroke and Livingston, Inc.
Plainview Inn, Inc.
Reservoir Avenue Management, Inc.
65 Roosevelt Inc.
Sky Resort, Inc.
Somerset Consolidation Corporation
Sonoma Conveyancing Corporation
Standard of Georgia Insurance Agency, Inc.
Uniondale Holdings Inc.
Vanderventer Corp.
Vintage Reinsurance Company
Waccaboro Corp.
Wappingers Falls Development Corp.
Windy Ridge Corp.
Yellowstone Venture, Inc.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 521 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 105
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 521

  To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse and 
 customhouse located at 515 West First Street in Duluth, Minnesota, as 
 the ``Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building and United States Courthouse 
                           and Customhouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 7, 2007

 Ms. Klobuchar introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

                             March 29, 2007

               Reported by Mrs. Boxer, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse and 
 customhouse located at 515 West First Street in Duluth, Minnesota, as 
 the ``Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building and United States Courthouse 
                           and Customhouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse and customhouse 
located at 515 West First Street in Duluth, Minnesota, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse and Customhouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse and customhouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to 
be a reference to the ``Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse and Customhouse''.
                                                       Calendar No. 105

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 521

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse and 
 customhouse located at 515 West First Street in Duluth, Minnesota, as 
 the ``Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building and United States Courthouse 
                           and Customhouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 29, 2007

                       Reported without amendment
```
STATE of North Carolina v. Devon Armond GAYLES.

No. 399P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North.

*611Devon A. Gayles, for Gayles, Devon Armond.

Todd Williams, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 30th of November 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Buncombe County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
* 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. 07-20580

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SERGIO VASQUEZ CARBAJAL, also known as Sergio Carvajal Vazquez, also

known as Sergio Vasquez-Carbajal, also known as Sergio Carvajal-Vasquez, also

known as Sergio Vazquez

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-39-ALL

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sergio Vasquez Carbajal was convicted of illegal reentry into the United

States after having been deported and was sentenced to serve 46 months in

prison. In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), he challenges

the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and

aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-20580

2

offense that must be found by a jury. This argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). United States v.

Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872

(2008).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
STEWART v. KRUEGER.

No. 274P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Robert K. Stewart, Marion, for Stewart, Robert K.

Amy Kunstling Irene, Assistant Attorney General.

Maureen Krueger, District Attorney.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of August 2015 by Petitioner for Complaint Obstructing Justice:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
STATE of North Carolina v. Donny Lamar PHILLIPS.

No. COA15-57.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 1, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
# C_2009267EN.01000801.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie v T. Sahin

(Case C-242/06) (1)

1

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Freedom of movement for workers - Introduction of administrative charges for obtaining a residence permit in the host Member State - Infringement of the standstill clause in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council)

2009/C 267/13

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie

Applicant:

Defendant: T. Sahin

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 concerning the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey, read in conjunction with Article 59 of the Additional Protocol, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 (OJ 1972 L 293, p. 1) — Obligation to pay administrative charges for the processing of the application for extension of a residence permit — Application not lodged in good time

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as precluding the introduction, from the entry into force of that decision in the Member State concerned, of national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the granting of a residence permit or an extension of the period of validity thereof conditional on payment of administrative charges, where the amount of those charges payable by Turkish nationals is disproportionate as compared with the amount required from Community nationals.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

1

---
addendum.htm


ADDENDUM NO. 10












This Addendum No. 10, effective as of December 6, 2010, by and between Universal Insurance Holdings, Inc. (hereinafter the “Company”) and Bradley I. Meier (“Employee”), modifies and amends the existing employment agreement (“Agreement”) and adopts all prior Addenda thereto (“Prior Addenda”) between the Company and the Employee, and amends provisions of the Agreement and the Addenda only in respect of the matters set forth herein, and otherwise the Agreement and Prior Addenda remain in full force and effect as if this Addendum No. 10 had not been executed:


I.           In respect of “Article 2.” of the Agreement entitled “Term,” the “Expiration Date” defined therein is hereby modified and changed to December 31, 2013.







[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]






  





  











  








 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Addendum No. 10 has been signed and executed on December 7, 2010.


 




	UNIVERSAL INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	
By: 

	/s/ George R. De Heer 	 
	Name: 	George R. De Heer 	 
	 	Chief Financial Officer 	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Bradley I. Meier 	 
	 	

BRADLEY I. MEIER – Employee
STATE v. Wayne Thomas JOHNSON.

No. 119P00-23.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney Generals, Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th day of January 2009 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of February 2009."

TIMMONS-GOODSON, J., recused.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 12, 2016

No. 04-15-00052-CV

Billy C. WHITFIELD and Carolyn Whitfield,

Appellants

v.

Charles Thomas ONDREJ, et al.,

Appellees

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-10-00231-CVK

Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellees’ second motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. 

The appellees’ brief is due on or before July 1, 2016. No further extensions of time will be 

granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 12th day of May, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
STATE of North Carolina v. Sherry Endoleen AUSTIN.

No. COA15-44.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 20, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
GRAPHIC ARTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and David Elton Register, Plaintiffs, v. NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S LIABILITY AND PROPERTY POOL, Marilyn Singh, individually and Sabrina Marie Singh, a Minor, by and through her Gal Marilyn Singh, Sanders Garage of Jacksonville, Inc., and Onslow United Transit System, Inc., Defendants.

No. COA15-377.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER 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 on Form 10-Q/A of Applix, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2002, and as amended on
March 31, 2003, April 4, 2003 and on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned,
David C. Mahoney, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

|                    |  |                                         
|------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------
|                    |  | /s/ David C. Mahoney                    
|                    |  |                                         
|Dated: May 19, 2003 |  | David C. Mahoney
Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Applix, Inc. and will be retained by Applix, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          46,594
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,720,866
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 11,944,399
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,155,136
<PP&E>                                      11,303,140
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,579,195
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              36,811,009
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,056,871
<BONDS>                                     18,844,652
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        67,694
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,983,718
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                36,811,009
<SALES>                                     48,189,221
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            48,189,221
<CGS>                                       37,772,658
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               37,772,658
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,392,459
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,251,649
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (227,545)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (46,500)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (181,045)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (181,045)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
----

(2004/C 65 E/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1926/03

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Prefix 709

In Italy telephone bills for Internet connections with the prefix 709 (connections at an extra charge not covered by service contracts) are ruining many families.

Many users claim that they have never knowingly made Internet connections using this prefix. The connections go through an automatic dialer which can disconnect the user's normal connection and automatically link the user's modem to the computer or server of an Internet service provider which charges for access. The providers concerned have their administrative, fiscal and logistical headquarters outside Italy.

Users only become aware of this connection when they receive the bill.

In view of the above, can the Commission say:

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

The matters raised by the Honourable Member concern the cost of access to Internet using the prefix 709, which is charged without the consent of the subscriber; it seems that the service is provided outside the standard contract conditions agreed by the subscriber and the service provider.

----

(1)OJ L 95, 21.4.1993.

(2)  Directive 2002/22/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.

(3)  COM(2003) 356 final.

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0557

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RAYMOND CLARK SMITH, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

FILE5

OCT 1 3 2020

Bovven

Clerk of

State of

ORDER

Counsel for the Appellant Raymond Clark Smith, Jr., filed a motion and brief asking

to be allowed to withdraw from this appeal on grounds that counsel has been unable to find

any nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal, pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA, and Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Smith was granted time to file a response,

but no response was filed.

The Court has now independently examined the record pursuant to § 46-8-103(2),

MCA, and Anders. We conclude there are no arguments with potential legal merit that

could be raised in a direct appeal of Smith's conviction in this case.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to

Smith personally.

DATED this 3 day of October, 2020.

Chief Justice

10/13/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0557
(9:4 A4 2A11--_ 

;Lee

Justices
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 801 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 801

To designate a United States courthouse located in Fresno, California, 
          as the ``Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 7, 2007

 Mrs. Boxer (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate a United States courthouse located in Fresno, California, 
          as the ``Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse bordered by O Street, P Street, Tulare 
Street, and Capitol Street in Fresno, California, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert E. Coyle 
United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```