alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008209EN.01004802.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/48

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2008 — Reber v OHIM — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli (Mozart)

(Case T-304/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark Mozart - Subject-matter of the dispute - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment - Principle of legality - Article 7(1)(c), Article 51(1)(a), Article 73, first sentence, and Article 74(1), first phrase, of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 209/84)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Paul Reber GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Reichenhall, Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (Kilchberg, Switzerland) (represented by: R.Lange and G. Hild, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2006 (Case R 97/2005-2) relating to entry of Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG and Paul Reber GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Paul Reber GmbH & Co. KG to pay its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Paul Reber GmbH & Co. KG to pay its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

| 3. | Orders Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprungli AG to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprungli AG to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LACROSSE FOOTWEAR, INC. AS OF AND FOR THE
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             426
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,959
<ALLOWANCES>                                       575
<INVENTORY>                                     39,073
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,559
<PP&E>                                          33,574
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,299
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,920
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,146
<BONDS>                                         12,499
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            67
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,781
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   101,920
<SALES>                                        145,503
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               145,503
<CGS>                                          104,692
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,493
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   162
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,043
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,706
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,588
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,779
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,779
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.01


</TABLE>
----

(2004/C 65 E/193)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2555/03

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(4 August 2003)

Subject:   Cross-channel ferry operators

The Commission has previously been questioned on the suggested cartel pricing practices of the cross-channel ferry companies and Eurotunnel (P-3419/00 (1)). In his response, Commissioner Monti expressed concern that there should be ‘effective competition between cross-channel operators’.

Several constituents have contacted me to suggest that there is effectively a cartel operating between the ferry companies and Eurotunnel. For example, although various prices are quoted, GBP 300 appears to be the cost of crossings for five-day returns for summer trips. They feel they are comparatively paying more for this particular route than other ferry crossings in the EU (offered by Greek and Italian ferry companies). More information can be found on a website that has been established by those unhappy with these companies, http://www.channelpirates.com

Could the Commission comment on the pricing practices of the ferry companies and Eurotunnel operators, and whether it believes the companies are operating in an anti-competitive way?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2003)

The Honourable Member may know that the Commission has recently carried out simultaneous unannounced inspections at the premises of a number of operators of cross-Channel transport services (2). The purpose of these inspections was indeed to ascertain whether these companies are inter alia fixing prices and trade conditions for cross-Channel transport services, as suggested by the information referred to by the Honourable Member.

Such surprise inspections are a preliminary step in investigations into suspected cartels. As the Honourable Member will understand, the Commission can at this early stage of the investigation not make any further comments on the case.

----

(1)OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 164.

(2)  ΙΡ/03/168 of 3 September 2003; Spokeperson's Statement on inspections in cross-Channel transport services.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,752,620
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         173,728
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               313,047
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 53,688,276
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      19,298,220
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        19,416,130
<LOANS>                                    147,901,019
<ALLOWANCE>                                    490,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             231,140,190
<DEPOSITS>                                 172,902,844
<SHORT-TERM>                                25,266,250
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          3,648,286
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,934
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,305,876
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             231,140,190
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             11,644,544
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            4,442,580
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               313,561
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            16,400,685
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           8,845,283
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,839,417
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        6,561,268
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  110,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              4,131,884
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,808,770
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,668,807
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,668,807
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.02
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.55
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                   975,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               380,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              490,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        490,000
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
PC Service Source, Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements 
(nos. 333-09333, 333-09335, 33-81146 and 33-98176) on Form S-8 of PC Service 
Source, Inc. of our report dated February 13, 1998 relating to the consolidated 
balance sheet of PC Service Source, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 
1997, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' 
equity, and cash flows and the related financial statement schedule for the 
years ended December 31, 1997 and 1996, which report appears in the December 
31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of PC Service Source, Inc.


                                             KPMG LLP



Dallas, Texas
March 29, 1999
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136167 & (27) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136167 

 COA: 279447 

Oakland CC: 2001-179885-FC 

IJOMA E. RAYMOND,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 19, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion for stay is DENIED. 

s0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
# C_2007020EN.01002502.xml

| 27.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/25

---

Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Heijmans Infrastructuur v Commission

(Case T-359/06)

(2007/C 20/38)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Claimant: Heijmans Infrastructuur B.V. (represented by: M.F.A.M. Smeets and A.M. van den Oord, lawyers)

Claimant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | set aside, in whole or in part, the decision addressed to the claimant; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside, in whole or in part, the decision addressed to the claimant;

| — | set aside or reduce the fine imposed on the claimant; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside or reduce the fine imposed on the claimant;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The claimant is challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), by which a fine was imposed on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.

In support of its action, the claimant invokes the same pleas in law and arguments as those set out by the claimant in Case T-358/06 Wegenbouwmaatschappij J. Heijmans B.V. v Commission.

Wegenbouwmaatschappij J. Heijmans B.V.

Commission

---
State of North Carolina v. Terrell Prince James

No. COA16-35

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 20, 2016

NO ERROR.
**Exhibit 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**
     We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3(No.’s 333-64176, 333-102829 and 333-105127)) andForm S-8 (No.’s 333-3070, 333-17209, 333-20939,333-26557, 333-28403, 333-67233 and 333-86817) of ViewpointCorporation of our report dated March 31, 2003 relating tothe consolidated financial statements and financial statementschedule which appears in this Form 10-K/A.
/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
New York, New YorkJune 27, 2003
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 – Glaverbel v OHIM (Texture of a glass surface)**

**(Case T-141/06)**

Community trade mark – Application for a Community figurative mark representing the texture of a glass surface – Absolute ground for refusal – Absence of evidence of distinctive character acquired through use

1.                     *Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the Community judicature (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
Instance, Art. 135(4)) (see para. 14)*

2.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid
of any distinctive character – Exception – Acquisition of distinctive character through use (Council Regulation No 40/94,
Art. 7(1)(b), (2) and (3)) (see paras 19-23, 32-40)*

3.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Absence of
distinctive character – Exception – Acquisition of distinctive character through use (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)
and (3)) (see paras 35-38)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2006 (Case R 0986/2004-4), relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative mark representing the texture of a glass surface. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Glaverbel SA |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark consisting of a motif applied to the surface of goods of Classes 19 and 21 – Application No 3183068 |
| Decision of the Examiner: | Application for a community trade mark for all goods is dismissed |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the appeal; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Glaverbel SA to pay the costs. |
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .



                                   EXHIBIT 99

                      UNIVERSAL AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Three Months Ended June 30,                Six Months Ended June 30,
                                                        --------------------------------          ----------------------------------
                                                            2004                  2003                2004               2003
                                                        --------------------------------          ----------------------------------
<S>                                                      <C>                  <C>                 <C>                 <C>
Earnings (loss) per share:

BASIC NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
Numerator:
       Income (loss) from operations                     $ (3,314,479)        $     15,083        $  4,415,830        $   (959,387)

Denominator:
       Weighted average common shares outstanding          10,705,778            8,224,949          10,705,778           8,224,949
       Effect of dilutive securitiesd
             Conversion of preferred srock                                       3,014,380           3,014,380
              Common stock equivalents from
               warrants and options                                                964,962              86,741
                                                         ------------         ------------        ------------        ------------
Denominator for diluted earnings per common share          10,705,778           12,204,291          13,806,899           8,224,949
                                                         ============         ============        ============        ============

       Basic net income (loss) per common share          $      (0.31)        $       0.00        $       0.41        $      (0.12)
                                                         ============         ============        ============        ============

       Diluted net income (loss) per common share        $      (0.31)        $       0.00        $       0.32        $      (0.12)
                                                         ============         ============        ============        ============
</TABLE>
# C_2009113EN.01003301.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/33

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 March 2009 — ArcelorMittal Luxembourg and Others v Commission

(Case T-405/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Community market in beams - Decision establishing an infringement of Article 65 CS, after expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Competence of the Commission - Liability for the infringement - Limitation - Rights of the defence)

2009/C 113/66

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA, formerly Arcelor Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA, formerly Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg); and ArcelorMittel International SA, formerly Arcelor International SA (Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Vandencasteele, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendants: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and F. Arbault, Agents)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5342 final of 8 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 [CS] concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams (Case COMP/F/38.907 — Steel beams).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2006) 5342 final of 8 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 [CS] concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams (Case COMP/F/38.907 — Steel beams) inasmuch as it concerns ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA and ArcelorMittal International SA; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2006) 5342 final of 8 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 [CS] concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams (Case COMP/F/38.907 — Steel beams) inasmuch as it concerns ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA and ArcelorMittal International SA;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as unfounded as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as unfounded as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders, in so far as the present case is between them, the Commission to pay, in addition its own expenses, the costs incurred by ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange and ArcelorMittal International; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders, in so far as the present case is between them, the Commission to pay, in addition its own expenses, the costs incurred by ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange and ArcelorMittal International;

| 4. | Orders, in so far as the present case is between them, ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders, in so far as the present case is between them, ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
State v. Isidro Garcia Hernandez

63P15-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Isidro Garcia Hernandez, for Hernandez, Isidro Garcia.

Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th of May 2016 by Defendant for Subpoena Duces Tecum:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016." Ervin, J. recused
EXHIBIT 32.1

The
following certification is provided by the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Saxon Capital, Inc. on the basis of such officers knowledge and
belief for the sole purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

# CERTIFICATION

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Saxon Capital, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 9, 2004 (the Report), the undersigned, as
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer 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, that:

| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|November 9, 2004 |  | By: /s/ Michael L. Sawyer
Michael L. SawyerChief Executive Officer
|---------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | By: /s/ Robert B. Eastep
Robert B. EastepChief Financial Officer
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 upon request. This
certification accompanies the Report and shall not be treated as having been filed as part
of the Report.