Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62010TN0161

    Case T-161/10: Action brought on 8 April 2010 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Tecnifar (E-PLEX)

    OJ C 148, 5.6.2010, p. 47–48 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    5.6.2010   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 148/47

    Action brought on 8 April 2010 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Tecnifar (E-PLEX)

    (Case T-161/10)

    2010/C 148/77

    Language in which the application was lodged: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)

    Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tecnifar — Industria Tecnica Farmaceutica, SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

    Form of order sought

    —

    Admit the complaint filed by the applicant;

    —

    Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 February 2010 in case R 662/2009-4 and dismiss the opposition filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal with respect to pharmaceutical and veterinary medical products with the exception of medicinal products for diseases related to the central nervous system; and

    —

    Order the defendant to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

    Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “E-PLEX”, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 35

    Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

    Mark or sign cited: Portuguese trade mark registration of the word mark “EPILEX”, for goods in class 5

    Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially allowed the opposition

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially dismissed the appeal

    Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

    Top