alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009267EN.01006201.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/62

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — GlaxoSmithKline and others v OHIM — Serono Genetics Institute (FAMOXIN)

(Joined Cases T-493/07, T- 26/08 and T-27/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark FAMOXIN - Earlier national word marks LANOXIN - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Proof of use - Article 56(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

2009/C 267/109

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: GlaxoSmithKline SpA (Verona, Italy); Laboratórios Wellcome de Portugal Lda (Algés, Portugal); and The Wellcome Foundation Ltd (Greenford, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Gilbey, Lawyer)

Applicants:

da

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and D. Botis, Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Serono Genetics Institute SA, (Évry, France)

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

Re:

Re:

Three actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 September 2007 (Case R 8/2007-1), 20 November 2007 (Case R 10/2007-1) and 19 November 2007 (Case R 9/2007-1), relating to cancellation proceedings between, on the one hand, GlaxoSmithkline SpA, Laboratórios Wellcome De Portugal Lda and The Wellcome Foundation Ltd, and, on the other, Serono Genetics Institute SA.

da

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Joins Cases T-493/07, T-26/08 and T-27/08 for the purposes of the present judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Joins Cases T-493/07, T-26/08 and T-27/08 for the purposes of the present judgment;

| 2. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the actions;

| 3. | Orders GlaxoSmithKline SpA, Laboratórios Wellcome de Portugal, Lda and The Wellcome Foundation Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders GlaxoSmithKline SpA, Laboratórios Wellcome de Portugal, Lda and The Wellcome Foundation Ltd to pay the costs.

da

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350), the undersigned officer of Placer Sierra Bancshares (the Company), hereby certifies that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (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: November 4, 2004



/s/    RONALD W.
BACHLIName:

Ronald W. BachliTitle:

Chief Executive Officer




The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            25
<OTHER-SE>                                         975
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>NOT SEPARATELY IDENTIFIED IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OR ACCOMPANYING
NOTES THERETO.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Harry Sharod JAMES

No. 514PA11-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

David W. Andrews, Assistant Appellate Defender, for James, Harry Sharod.

Sandra Wallace-Smith, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 3rd of June 2016 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 20th of May 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 3rd of June 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15 (g)(2).
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)

19 October 2007

Case F-23/07

**M**

**v**

**European Medicines Agency (EMEA)**

(Civil service – Officials – Invalidity – Invalidity Committee – Refusal to convene – Manifest inadmissibility)

**Application:**brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which M seeks annulment of the decision of the EMEA of 25 October 2006 rejecting
his application for an Invalidity Committee to be convened, and of the decision of the EMEA of 31 January 2007 rejecting his
claim for compensation.

**Held:**The action is dismissed as inadmissible. Each party is to bear its own costs.

**Summary**

1.      *Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Decision repeating the position adopted in the initial decision
– Act merely confirming a decision – Inadmissibility*

*(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)*

2.      *Officials – Actions – Action for annulment not brought within the time-limit – Action for damages aiming to achieve the same
result – Inadmissibility*

*(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)*

1.      A decision by which the administration, in the absence of any change in the state of health of the official in question, merely
repeats its refusal to convene an Invalidity Committee is an act merely confirming a decision and not a new decision having
the effect of setting the time-limit for appeal running again, even if that decision is taken in the light of a medical report
which was not available when the administration adopted its initial position.

(see paras 40, 43)

See:

214/85 *Gherardi Dandolo* v *Commission* [1987] ECR 2163, paras 15 to 17

2.      An action for damages is not admissible where the official seeks to obtain the same result as he would have obtained had he
been successful in an action for annulment which he failed to commence in due time. An official who has failed to bring, within
the periods laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, an action for annulment of a measure alleged to have
adversely affected him cannot repair that omission and thus obtain further time for bringing proceedings by lodging a claim
for compensation for the damage caused by that measure.

(see para. 45)

See:

346/87 *Bossi* v *Commission* [1989] ECR 303, para. 32

T-20/92 *Moat* v *Commission* [1993] ECR II‐799, para. 46; T-147/04 *Ross* v *Commission* [2005] ECR-SC I‐A‐171 and II‐771, para. 48
Order entered January 15, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00047-CR

EX PARTE BRODEY GARRETT DUKE

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-2-0848

ORDER

The Court has received appellant’s notice of appeal from the trial court’s order denying 

his pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus. This is an accelerated criminal appeal under 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 31.

We ORDER the trial court to prepare a certification of appellant’s right to appeal for 

inclusion in the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a), (d); Cortez v. State, 420 S.W.3d 803 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

We ORDER the Grayson County Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of 

this order, the clerk’s record containing all the documents related to appellant’s pretrial 

application for writ of habeas corpus, the trial court’s written order ruling on the application for 

writ of habeas corpus, and the trial court’s certification of appellant’s right to appeal.

We ORDER Tammy Allen official court reporter of the County Court at Law No. 2, to 

file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, either the reporter’s record from the 
hearing on the pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus or written verification that no 

hearing was conducted on the application.

Appellant’s brief is due by FEBRUARY 17, 2015. The State’s brief is due by MARCH 

5, 2015. If any party does not file its brief by the date specified, the appeal will be submitted 

without that party’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 31.1.

The appeal will be submitted, without argument, on April 9, 2015 to a panel consisting of 

Justices Bridges, Fillmore, and Brown. See TEX. R. APP. P. 31.2, 39.1.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Carol M. Siebman, Presiding Judge, County Court at Law No. 2; Tammy Allen, 

official court reporter, County Court at Law No. 2; Wilma Bush, Grayson County Clerk; and to 

counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 17 September 2008 – Prana Haus v OHIM (PRANAHAUS)**

**(Case T-226/07)**

Community trade mark – Application for registration of the word mark PRANAHAUS – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation
No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 31-35)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 April 2007 (Case R 1611/2006-1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark PRANAHAUS as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Prana Haus GmbH |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark PRANAHAUS for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 35 – Application No 4839916 |
| Decision of the examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Prana Haus GmbH to pay the costs. |
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                             564
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,737
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     40,114
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,783
<PP&E>                                          46,925
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,818
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  77,144
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,641
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            70
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,328
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    77,144
<SALES>                                        172,174
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               172,174
<CGS>                                           92,001
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,605
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,501
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,067
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,590
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,477
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (1,778)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       699
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
        





</TABLE>
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of B. T

. D

. and C.M.D.

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 6

- 00 5 8 2

- CV

Trial court case number: 1 2

- FD

- 1 8 07

Trial court: 3 06 th District Court of Galveston Cou nty

The reporter ’s record initially was due in this case on August 3 , 201 6, and currently is due on August 26, 2016

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.4, 35. 1. On August 1 8 , 201 6 , court reporter
Karen S. Bernhardt file a motion for an extension of time to September 9, 2016, to file the reporter’s record of the trial (approximately 1300 pages, covering nine days of testimony )

. 1 The

motion is GRANTED . The portion of the reporter’s record to be prepared by Karen S. Bernhardt

is due to filed in this Court no later than Friday, September 9, 2016.

Because this appeal involves the termination of the parent

- child relationship, the Court is required to bring the appeal to final disposition within 180 days of July 2 5, 2016, the date the notice of appeal was filed in this proce eding, so far as reasonably possible. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2, reprinted in Tex. Gov’t. Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. F app. (West 2013); see also Tex. R. App. P. 28.4. Accordingly, no further extensions will be granted.

The reporter’s records to be prep ared and filed by Kimberly Keeler and Dale Lee remain due on August 26, 2016.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: August 23, 2016

1 I n formation provided to the Clerk of this Court shows that court reporter s Kimberly Keeler and Dale Lee also participated in the trial court proceedings . On August 16, 2 016, we granted Kimberly Keeler’s request for an extension and extended the time to file the reporter’s record to August 26, 2016.
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-86457, 333-93516, 333-60651 and 333-109406 and
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-19197, 333-60079 and 333-60619) of Winston Hotels Inc. of our
report dated March 10, 2004 relating to the financial statements and financial
statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Raleigh, North Carolina
March 10, 2004



                                       1
STATE v. Andrew Darrin RAMSEUR

388A10-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 20, 2016

Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, Benjamin Dowling-Sendor, Assistant Appellate Defender, Andrew DeSimone, Assistant Appellate Defender, Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, for Ramseur, Andrew Darrin.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Amy Kunstling Irene, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Cassandra Stubbs, Attorney at Law, Christopher A. Brook, Legal Director, Burton Craige, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, James Coleman, Attorney at Law, Irving Joyner, Attorney at Law, Durham, for ACLU Capital Punishment Project, et al.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 19th of October 2016 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of October 2016."

Plaintiff-Appellee shall have up to and including the 28th day of November 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# C_2008285EN.01003803.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/38

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2008 — ratiopharm v OHIM (BioGeneriX)

(Case T-48/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark BioGeneriX - Absolute ground for refusal - Partially descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 285/70)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ratiopharm GmbH (Ulm, Germany) (represented initially by S. Völker, then by S. Völker and A. Schabenberger, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 December 2006 (Case R 1048/2004-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark BioGeneriX as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 December 2006 (Case R 1048/2004-4), in so far as chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs, falling within Class 1, are concerned; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 December 2006 (Case R 1048/2004-4), in so far as chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs, falling within Class 1, are concerned;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders ratiopharm GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay half of OHIM's costs. OHIM will bear the other half of its costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders ratiopharm GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay half of OHIM's costs. OHIM will bear the other half of its costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

1

---
# C_2008107EN.01004303.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/43

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 March 2008 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-309/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 107/74)

Language of the case: Dutch

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.

1

---