alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 15 October 2008 – Air Products and Chemicals v OHIM – Messer Group
(Ferromix, Inomix et Alumix)**

**(Joined Cases T-305/06 to T-307/06)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Applications for the Community word marks Ferromix, Inomix and Alumix – Earlier Community word marks FERROMAXX, INOMAXX and ALUMAXX – Relative ground for refusal – 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 21, 34, 59-63)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTIONS brought against three decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 1270/2005-2 and R 1408/2005-2; R 1226/2005-2 and R 1398/2005-2; R 1225/2005-2 and R 1397/2005-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. and Messer Group GmbH. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Messer Group GmbH |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word marks Ferromix, Inomix and Alumix for goods in Classes 1 and 4 – Application Nos 3190063, 3190031 and 3190022 |
| Proprietor of the mark or signs cited in support of the opposition: | Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. |
| Marks or signs cited in support of the opposition: | Word marks FERROMAXX, INOMAXX and ALUMAXX for goods in Class 1 |
| Decisions of the Opposition Division: | Oppositions upheld for all goods in Class 1 and dismissed for all goods in Class 4 |
| Decisions of the Board of Appeal: | Appeals dismissed; actions by the applicant upheld |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 1270/2005‐2 and R 1408/2005‐2; R 1226/2005‐2 and R 1398/2005‐2; R 1225/2005‐2 and R 1397/2005‐2); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay the costs of Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders Messer Group GmbH to bear its own costs. |
# C_2008051EN.01002702.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/27

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-294/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Failure to transpose into national law within the prescribed period)

(2008/C 51/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Maidani, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77 and corrigenda — OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35 and OJ 2005 L 197, p. 34)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

1

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


<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Financial Statements of Maxcor Financial Group Inc. at and as of
September 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
Consolidated Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                      <C>               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1999       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                           JUL-01-1999       JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-1999       SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                    16,706,973        16,706,973
<RECEIVABLES>                             24,702,887        24,702,887
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                0                 0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                              0                 0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                       10,407,597        10,407,597
<PP&E>                                     7,668,962         7,668,962
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            77,492,083        77,492,083
<SHORT-TERM>                               1,011,597         1,011,597
<PAYABLES>                                 6,546,456         6,546,456
<REPOS-SOLD>                                       0                 0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                0                 0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                 0                 0
<LONG-TERM>                                4,512,172         4,512,172
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      2,000,000         2,000,000
<PREFERRED>                                        0                 0
<COMMON>                                      11,392            11,392
<OTHER-SE>                                28,301,946        28,301,946
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              77,492,083        77,492,083
<TRADING-REVENUE>                            196,872         1,068,877
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                         587,616         1,410,507
<COMMISSIONS>                             37,545,030       122,222,432
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                      0                 0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                      0                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           282,558           738,493
<COMPENSATION>                            27,144,829        84,415,063
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              642,671         6,934,252
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   642,671         6,934,252
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0                 0
<CHANGES>                                          0                 0
<NET-INCOME>                               1,047,599         3,668,402
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.12              0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.12              0.36



</TABLE>
**Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 26 September 2006 – Athinaïki Techniki v Commission**

**(Case T-94/05)**

Action for annulment – State aid – Complaint – Decision to take no further action on the complaint – Inadmissible

Applications for interim measures – Actionable measures – Measures challengeable by a complainant against State aid (Arts 81 EC, 82 EC, 230, fourth para., EC, and 232, third para.,
EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 4, 20, and 25) (see paras 28-33)

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 2 December 2004, informing the applicant of the decision to take no further action on its complaint concerning State aid allegedly granted by the Hellenic Republic to the Hyatt Regency consortium in connection with the Casino Mont Parnès public contract. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Dismisses the action as inadmissible; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders Athinaïki Techniki AE to pay all the costs. |
# C_2008107EN.01000902.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-340/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/73/EC - Equal treatment for men and women - Access to employment, vocational training and promotion - Working conditions - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2008/C 107/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G.Rozet and M. van Beek. acting as agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 2002 L 269, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | declares that, by not having adopted within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 2(1) of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

declares that, by not having adopted within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 2(1) of that directive.

| 2. | orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

1

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan
August 5, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 137015 (11) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices GLYNN LATERREL WELLS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 137015 COA: 285062 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Ju stice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is DENIED because MCL 600.2 963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees. Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $2.00, shall submit a copy of this order with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being filed in this Court. If plaintiff timely files the partia l fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to plain tiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of $373.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file furth er appeals in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. The Clerk of the Court sh all furnish two copies of th is order to plaintiff and return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.

jm I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
August 5, 2008
Clerk
LANDOVER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Thomas B. SANDERS; Anna B. Sanders; Sanders Equipment Company, Inc. ; and Sanders Development Company, L.L.C.

No. 13P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 18, 2016.

Nelson G. Harris, Raleigh, for Landover Homeowners Association, Inc.

Matthew D. Quinn, Raleigh, for Sanders, Thomas B., et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants on the 14th of January 2016 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th of January 2016 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-08-218-CV

GALE LEON FORD	APPELLANT	

	V.

BILLIE JOAN FORD 	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 158TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	On  August 11, 2008, we notified appellant that his brief had not been filed as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a).  TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).  We stated we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  We have not received any response.

	Because appellant’s brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b).

	Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM 		

PANEL:  LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ. 

DELIVERED:  August 29, 2008
|  | (1)  | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities and 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. |
|--|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: April 9, 2009 | By:                                                                                                                | /s/ Jonathan Leinwand |
|------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                               | Jonathan Leinwand                                                                                                       |
|                               | Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |

----
IN RE C.G.

No. COA08-552.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (01J430).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# CE2004084EN.01021901.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/219 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/219

---

(2004/C 84 E/0263)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3075/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Freedom and pluralism in information

Subject:

The Commission adopted the Green Paper on Services of General Interest (1) on 21 May 2003. Among other issues the Green Paper tackles the question whether the possibility of taking tangible measures to protect pluralism should be re-considered at Community level and what measures might be envisaged. All interested parties were invited to submit their comments by 15 September 2003.

1

Can the Commission say what comments it has received and what steps it intends to take as regards safeguarding pluralism?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

(12 November 2003)

In the public consultation on the Green Paper the Commission has received up to now about 260 contributions. Comments were sent in particular by governments of Member States, a national Parliament, regional and local authorities, national regulatory authorities, providers of local services, providers of social services and health services, operators in network industries, organisations in the media sector, trade unions, consumer organisations and industry associations. Also political parties, academic institutions and individual citizens sent their comments.

The Commission is currently still analysing the contributions received. However, the comments for which an explicit authorisation to publish was given have already been made available on the Commission's Internet site (2).

2

The Commission intends to present its conclusions from the consultation on the Green Paper during the first semester of 2004.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 270 final.

1

(2)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/services_general_interest/

2

---
----

(2004/C 65 E/266)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2974/03

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject:   Spain's lack of commitment to building the motorway linking Salamanca with Portugal

Anyone driving from the heart of Europe to Salamanca in Spain has four-lane roads at their disposal all the way.

From Salamanca onwards, there are only two narrow lanes, which means that everyone has to travel at the speed of lorries.

Where the road leaves Salamanca in the direction of Portugal, there are huge billboards announcing the building of a new four lane road co-funded by the EEC. In reality, until about half way to Ciudad Rodrigo (the last Spanish town before the Portuguese border), work is proceeding so slowly, that at the point where it stops it consists of nothing more than earth moving.

From Ciudad Rodrigo on, there is no work whatsoever being done, while as soon as the Portuguese border is crossed, the entire road to A Guarda is being converted to four lanes.

Can the Commission answer the following:

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2003)

The link between Salamanca-Fuentes de Oroño-Vilar Formoso-A Guarda is part of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) for road. It is also included in one of the 14 priority projects of the TEN-T, project number 8, Multimodal link Portugal-Spain-Central Europe. Furthermore, it is to be noted that in the framework of the High Level Group on trans-European transport network chaired by Mr Van Miert (1), composed by representatives of each Member State, year 2010 was agreed as date for start of operation for the whole link Lisboa-Valladolid.

The Commission is informed that as regards the Spanish national road N-620, between the French and the Portuguese borders, which forms part of the European network E80, there is a four lane expressway all the way between Irún and the north of Salamanca. The section between Salamanca and Fuentes de Oñoro on the Portuguese border still remains to be converted to four lanes. The section west of Salamanca between Aldehuela and Martín de Yeltes is already operational.

Currently, a large project concerning the construction of a four lane road between Martín de Yeltes and Ciudad Rodrigo has been approved for Community financial support under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), in the framework of the Operational Programme for the Spanish Region of Castilla y León. The works cover a section of 32,9 kilometre (km) and are planned to be finalised in October 2004. The section between Ciudad Rodrigo and Fuentes de Oñoro (approximately 29 km) remains to be upgraded. Furthermore, the Commission is informed that the Spanish authorities have already drawn up the plans for the corresponding projects for the full distance between Salamanca and Fuentes de Oñoro.

The planning of the works being the exclusive competence of the national and regional authorities, the Commission has no further information regarding the timetable of this project.

----

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/ten/transport/revision/hlg_en.htm

----
# C_2008327EN.01002501.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/25

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 October 2008 — Austrian Relief Programm v Commission

(Case T-235/06) (1)

1

(Application for annulment - Community financing of a project for the improvement of living standards to promote the return of refugees and displaced persons - Arbitration clause - Debit note - Inadmissible)

(2008/C 327/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Austrian Relief Program — Verein für Not- und Katastrophenhilfe (Innsbruck, Austria) (represented by: C. Leyroutz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Šimdová, agents, assisted by R. Bierwagen, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of the debit note of 4 May 2006 by which the Commission sought repayment from the applicant of sums paid in performance of the contract concerning Community financing of the project ‘Republika Srpska 1998: Improvement of living standards to promote the return of refugees and displaced persons’ (Contract RE/YOU/03/04/98), concluded within framework of the Obnova programme.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed;

| 2. | Austrian Relief Program — Verein für Not- und Katastrophenhilfe is ordered t pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Austrian Relief Program — Verein für Not- und Katastrophenhilfe is ordered t pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.

1

---