Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2007/155/72

    Case T-169/07: Action brought on 16 May 2007 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Celltech Pharma (Cellutrim)

    OJ C 155, 7.7.2007, p. 40–40 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    7.7.2007   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 155/40


    Action brought on 16 May 2007 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Celltech Pharma (Cellutrim)

    (Case T-169/07)

    (2007/C 155/72)

    Language in which the application was lodged: German

    Parties

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

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Celltech Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

    Form of order sought

    declaration that the application is admissible;

    annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 7 March 2007 and dismissal of the application by Celltech Pharma GmbH & Co. KG that Community trade mark registration No 3979036 be declared invalid; and

    order that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘Cellutrim’ for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 35 (Community trade mark No 3979036).

    Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

    Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Celltech Pharma GmbH & Co. KG.

    Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: The word mark ‘Cellidrin’ for goods in class 5.

    Decision of the Cancellation Division: Cancellation of the Community trade mark concerned in relation to goods in class 5.

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

    Pleas in law: Faulty reasoning of the Board of Appeal, since there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks.


    Top