EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TA0473
Case T-473/11: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2014 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Weleda Trademark (MENOCHRON) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark MENOCHRON — Earlier Community word mark MENODORON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Case T-473/11: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2014 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Weleda Trademark (MENOCHRON) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark MENOCHRON — Earlier Community word mark MENODORON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Case T-473/11: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2014 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Weleda Trademark (MENOCHRON) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark MENOCHRON — Earlier Community word mark MENODORON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
OJ C 184, 16.6.2014, p. 26–26
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
16.6.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 184/26 |
Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2014 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Weleda Trademark (MENOCHRON)
(Case T-473/11) (1)
((Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community word mark MENOCHRON - Earlier Community word mark MENODORON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2014/C 184/44
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Longevity Health Products (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Weleda Trademark AG (Arlesheim, Switzerland) (represented by: W. Haring, lawyer)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 July 2010 (Case R 2345/2010-4), relating to an opposition procedure between Weleda Trademark AG and Longevity Health Products, Inc.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action. |
|
2. |
Orders Longevity Health Products, Inc. to pay the costs. |