alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009069EN.01001002.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/10

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2008 — Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), TDK Kabushiki Kaisha (TDK Corp.)

(Case C-197/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(5) - Reputation - Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark - Application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word mark ‘TDK’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community and national word and figurative marks TDK - Refusal to register)

(2009/C 69/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 (represented by: C. Barrett Christiansen, advokat)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), TDK Kabushiki Kaisha (TDK Corp.) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 6 February 2007 in Case T-477/04 Aktieselskabet af 21. November 2001 v OHIM dismissing as unfounded an action brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘TDK’ for goods in Class 25 against Decision R 364/2003-1 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2004 rejecting the appeal brought against the Opposition Division refusing registration of that mark in the context of opposition proceeding brought by the proprietor of the Community and national word and figurative marks ‘TDK’

Aktieselskabet af 21. November 2001

OHIM

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.

1

---
Baidya Nath Chatterjee, Plaintiff, v. Mary Lizzie Ivory, Defendant.

No. COA16-12

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 4, 2016

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART.
# C_2010011EN.01002301.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/23

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (222, 333 and 555)

(Joined Cases T-200/07 to T-202/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Applications for Community word marks 222, 333 and 555 - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 11/43

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and K. Zajfert, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Three actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2007 (Cases R 1276/2006-4, R 1277/2006-4 and R 1278/2006-4), concerning the applications for registration of the word marks 222, 333 and 555 as Community trade marks.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.

1

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

# AGENCY:

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC).

# ACTION:

Notice of Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board Membership.

                    Title 5, U.S. Code, section 4314(c)(4), The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Public Law 95-454 (section 405) requires that the appointment of Performance Review Board (PRB) members be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

As required by 5 CFR 430.310, Chairman W. Scott Railton has appointed the following executives to serve on the Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board for the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission beginning September 2005 through September 2007:

Stephen S. Smith, Associated Director for Management, Broadcasting Board of Governors,

Christopher W. Warner, General Counsel, U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigator Board,

Richard L. Baker, Executive Director, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission,

Marcel C. Acosta, Deputy Executive Director, National Capital Planning Commission,

Jill Crumpacker, Chief of Staff/Director of Policy and Performance Management, U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority,

Thomas Stock, General Counsel, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.

The PRB will make recommendations to the Chairman on the performance of the Commission's senior executives.

For information regarding this notice, please contact Alexander Fernández, General Counsel, Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission at (202) 606-5100.

Dated: September 9, 2005.

W. Scott Railton, 

Chairman, Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

[FR Doc. 05-18773  Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7600-01-M
# C_2010134EN.01003002.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2010 — Mirto Corporación Empresarial v OHIM — Maglificio Barbara (Mirtillino)

(Case T-427/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Mirtillino - Earlier Community word mark MIRTO - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 134/50

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mirto Corporación Empresarial, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Maglificio Barbara Srl (Busto Arsizio, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 August 2007 (Case R 875/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Creaciones Mirto SA and Maglificio Barbara Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mirto Corporación Empresarial, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mirto Corporación Empresarial, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.

1

---
KEN BRISEBOIS



CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON





To:

US Securities and Exchange Commission



I, Steve Blower, do hereby consent to (i) the incorporation by reference of the following document(s) into the annual information form (the AIF) of Nevsun Resources Ltd. (the Issuer) dated March 22, 2006 to be filed with certain Canadian securities commissions and the annual report on Form 40-F (the 40-F) of the Issuer to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection therewith, and (ii) the inclusion of any extracts from or summary of such document(s) in the AIF and the 40-F:

1.  News Release. Updated Resource Statement for the bisha Depositi in Eritrea, dated January 10, 2006.

I also certify that I have read the written disclosure being filed and it fairly and accurately represents the information in the news release dated January 10, 2006 of Nevsun Resources Ltd.

Dated this23 day of March, 2006.

signed

_______________________
Steve Blower, P. Geo

[Seal or Stamp]
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136179 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: 136179 

 COA: 283109 

VALDEZ S. GLENN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

Wayne CC: 06-009547-01;

06-010534-01 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 20, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

0828 

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
The Compensation Committee has the discretion to make award payments in an amount less thanthe pre-established award targets, even if the objective business criteria are achieved. Indeciding whether, and to what extent, to pay an award payment to each named executive officer(other than the Chief Executive Officer), an important factor considered by the CompensationCommittee, in exercising its discretion to reduce an award, is the Chief Executive Officer’sevaluation of the individual performance of the named executive officer. Generally, the ChiefExecutive Officer makes his recommendation based upon his evaluation of the named executiveofficer’s individual contributions to the performance of the Company and such other factors as hemay deem relevant. The final determination of all award payments to the named executive officersis made by the Compensation Committee; however, the Compensation Committee may not use thesesubjective criteria to increase the amount of any award that is otherwise payable at a specificlevel based upon the attainment of the objectively determined amount of net income.For the 2009 Cash Incentive Program, the Eligibility Range was $57.5 million to $63.5 millionof net income. If the Company earned less than $57.5 million of net income, no participant wouldhave been entitled to an award payment under this program. At $57.5 million of net income eachparticipant would have been eligible to receive up to 20% of his award target. At or above $63.5million of net income, each participant was eligible to receive up to 100% of his award target.Between $57.5 million and $63.5 million of net income, the percentage of the award target whicheach participant was eligible to receive increased as net income increased.For the 2010 Cash Incentive Program, the Eligibility Range is $71.2 million to $78.4 millionof net income. If the Company earns less than $71.2 million of net income, no participant isentitled to an award payment under this program. At $71.2 million of net income, Mr. Black iseligible to receive up to 30% of the maximum award target and Messrs. Ullman, Hensley, Merryand Thorne are eligible to receive up to approximately 15% of the maximum award targets. At or above $78.4million of net income, each participant is eligible to receive up to 100% of the participant’smaximum award target. Between $71.2 million and $78.4 million of net income, the percentage of theaward target which each participant is eligible to receive will increase as net income increases.
 
2
May 1 5 , 20 12



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

EX PARTE NANCY RICHEY

NO. 14

- 12

- 00253

- CR

____________________ This cause was heard on the motion of the appellant to withdraw the notice of appeal. Having considered the motion, the Court orders the appeal DISMISSED and that the appellant pay all costs expended in this appeal, and further orders this decision
certif ied below for observance.

We further order the Clerk of this Court to issue the mandate immediately.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 *
  (i)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
  
 
  
 *
    
    This certification, required by Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, other than as required by Section 906, is
not deemed to be filed with the Commission or subject to the
rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of said
Act.
State of North Carolina v. John David Watson

No. 39P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Marie Hare Mobley, Attorney at Law, for Watson, John David.

Richard G. Sowerby, Assistant Attorney General, E. Burke Haywood, Special Deputy Attorney General, Valerie Mitchell Asbell, *319District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of February 2016 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 9th of February 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 18th of August 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of February 2016 by Defendant 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 18th of August 2016."
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 6

- 00 315

- C R



### ____________________

NATHAN LEE WENZEL

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 258th District Court

Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. 24,626

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On May 13 , 20 16 , the trial co urt sentenced Nathan Lee Wenzel on a

conviction for theft

. Wenzel filed a notice of appeal on September 6, 2016

. The

trial court signed a certification

, certif ying that this is a plea

- bargain case and that

the defendant did not have a right to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2( a)(2). The

district clerk provided the trial court’s certification to the Court of Appeals.

On September 6, 2016 , we notified the parties that we would dismiss the

appeal unless the appellant established grounds for continuing the appeal. No2 response has been filed

. Because the trial court’s certification shows the defendant

does not have the right of appeal, we must dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

25.2(d). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

________________________________ HOLLIS HORTON

Justice

Submitted on October 4, 2016

Opinion Delivered October 5, 2016

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
Exhibit 10.1






 


ACTION
BY WRITTEN CONSENT OF MAJORITY SHAREHOLDERS


 


WALL
STREET MEDIA CO, INC.


 


 


WHEREAS,
pursuant to State of Nevada, the Corporation Laws and the Bylaws of this corporation, it is deemed desirable and in the best interests
of this corporation that the following actions be taken by the majority stockholders of this corporation pursuant to this Written
Consent.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the undersigned stockholders of this corporation hereby consent to approve and adopt the following:


 


The
cancellation of an indebtedness of $10,000 in the form of a promissory note. Incurred in March of 2014. for the purchase of a
domain property. It is the consensus of the majority shareholders of this corporation that it is in the best interest of the
corporation to cancel any debt or financial obligation that adds unnecessary indebtedness to the corporation.


 


RESOLVED,
that the Bylaws, which were adopted and approved by the incorporator of this corporation are hereby ratified, approved and adopted
as the Bylaws of this corporation. The Bylaws are filed with the state of Nevada, and are a matter of public record.


 


RESOLVED
FURTHER, that the officers of this corporation are, and each acting alone is, hereby authorized to do and perform any and all
such acts, including execution of any and all documents and certificates, as said officers shall deem necessary or advisable,
to carry out the purposes of the foregoing resolutions.


 


RESOLVED
FURTHER, that any actions taken by such officers prior to the date of the foregoing resolutions adopted hereby that are within
the authority conferred thereby are hereby ratified, confirmed and approved as the acts and deeds of this corporation.


 


This
written consent shall be filed in the Minute Book of this corporation and become a part of the records of this corporation.


 


Date: July
10th 2014


 


	 	
	 	Signature
	 	 
	 	Jerrold
    D. Burden
	 	Printed
    Name
	 	 
	 	common
	 	Class
    of Shares
	 	 
	 	14,847,705
	 	Number
    of Shares


 




    	Page 1 of 2



    	 



    



 


	 	
	 	Signature
	 	 
	 	Ronald Teblum
	 	
	 	Printed
    Name
	 	 
	 	Common
	 	
	 	Class
    of Shares
	 	 
	 	6, 588.021
	 	
	 	Number
    of Shares


 






    	Page 2 of 2
1... Relator asserts this matter arises from proceedings in Bexar County, but he does not

identify the trial court or provide a cause number. 

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00662-CV

IN RE Juan GAMEZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 24, 2008

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On August 29, 2008, relator Juan Gamez filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to

compel the District Clerk of Bexar County to file his motion for forcible entry and detainer. This

court has no mandamus jurisdiction over a district clerk unless the issuance of the writ is necessary

to enforce our jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a)-(b) (Vernon 2004); In re

Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). Relator has

failed to establish the writ he is requesting is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.

In addition, relator has the burden to provide a record establishing his right to mandamus

relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1) (relator must file with the mandamus petition a copy of every
04-08-00662-CV

-2-

document that is material to his claim for relief); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.

1992). Relator failed to provide this court with the motion he asserts he filed with the trial court or

any documents material to his request for mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
Consolidated Balance Sheet and Statement of Income
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             126
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,063,312
<DEPRECIATION>                                 202,821
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 987,553
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        471,091
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   987,553
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,849
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,061
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,481
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,307
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,307
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,307
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30


</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.1


CERTIFICATION


         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, the undersigned  officer of Radica
Games Limited (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Annual Report
on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended  December 31, 2003 (the  "Report")  fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,  of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



Dated:  March 25, 2004
                                    /S/ Patrick S. Feely
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Name: Patrick S. Feely
                                    Title: President and Chief Executive Officer


The foregoing  certification  is being  furnished  solely  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section  1350 and is not  being  filed as part of the  Report  or as a  separate
disclosure document.