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 62011TN0473

Case T-473/11: Action brought on 30 August 2011 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Weleda Trademark (MENOCHRON)

OJ C 311, 22.10.2011, p. 45–45 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

22.10.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/45

Action brought on 30 August 2011 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Weleda Trademark (MENOCHRON)

(Case T-473/11)

2011/C 311/84

Language of the case: German

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 of OHIM: Weleda Trademark AG (Arlesheim, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

—

declare the action by the company Longevity Health Products Inc. admissible;

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 July 2011 in Case R 2345/2010-4 and reject the opposition by Weleda Trademark AG to the trade mark registration CTM 005050752; and

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Longevity Health Products, Inc.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘MENOCHRON’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Weleda Trademark AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘MENODORON’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 44.

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 207/2009, (1) because there is no likelihood that the marks at issue would be confused.

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

Top