Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62011CN0081

Case C-81/11 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-363/09: Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gruppo Lepetit SpA

OJ C 139, 7.5.2011, p. 14–14 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
22/02/2011
Date lodged:
16/12/2010
Author:
Court of Justice
Form:
Judicial information
Authentic language:
English
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Case affecting:
Link

7.5.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/14

Appeal brought on 22 February 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-363/09: Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gruppo Lepetit SpA

(Case C-81/11 P)

2011/C 139/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gruppo Lepetit SpA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

admit the appeal filed by the company Longevity Health Products, Inc.

—

annul the decision of the General Court of 16 December 2010 in case T-363/09

—

order the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the General Court violated its right to due process of law by failing to grant a time period for the appellant to reply to the submissions of OHIM.

It is also submitted that the General Court did not deal with the arguments advanced by the holder of the trademark concerning the likelihood of confusion.

Top