This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010CO0084
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 2010. # Longevity Health Products Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). # Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Word sign 'Kids Vits' - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark VITS4KIDS - Level of attention of the relevant public - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Right to be heard. # Case C-84/10 P.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 2010.
Longevity Health Products Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Word sign 'Kids Vits' - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark VITS4KIDS - Level of attention of the relevant public - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Right to be heard.
Case C-84/10 P.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 2010.
Longevity Health Products Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Word sign 'Kids Vits' - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark VITS4KIDS - Level of attention of the relevant public - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Right to be heard.
Case C-84/10 P.
European Court Reports 2010 I-00131*
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2010:628
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 2010 – Longevity Health Products v OHIM
(Case C‑84/10 P)
Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(1)(b) – Word sign ‘Kids Vits’ – Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark VITS4KIDS – Level of attention of the relevant public – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Right to be heard
1. Appeals – Formal requirements – Proof that the authority granted to the applicant’s lawyer has been properly conferred on him by someone authorised for the purpose – Excluded (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 38(5)(b) and 112(1)) (see para. 19)
2. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the Community judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Permission to lodge a reply – General Court’s discretion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(2)) (see para. 24)
3. Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1), TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 30)
Re:
| Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 December 2009 in Case T-484/08 | Longevity Health Products | v | OHIM – Merck (Kids Vits) | , by which that court dismissed the action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008, refusing the registration of the word sign ‘Kids Vits’ as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Class 5, by upholding the opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark ‘VITS4KIDS’ – Breach of the right to a judicial hearing – Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Likelihood of confusion between two marks. |
Operative part
|
1. |
The appeal is dismissed. |
|
2. |
Longevity Health Products, Inc. is ordered to pay the costs. |