This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011CN0316
Case C-316/11 P: Appeal brought on 22 June 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15/04/2011 in Case T-96/11: Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Case C-316/11 P: Appeal brought on 22 June 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15/04/2011 in Case T-96/11: Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Case C-316/11 P: Appeal brought on 22 June 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15/04/2011 in Case T-96/11: Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
IO C 269, 10.9.2011, p. 28–28
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
10.9.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 269/28 |
Appeal brought on 22 June 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15/04/2011 in Case T-96/11: Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Case C-316/11 P)
2011/C 269/52
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)
Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
Admit the complaint filed by the company Longevity Health Products, Inc.; |
|
— |
Annul the decision of the General Court of April 15, 2011, T-96/11; |
|
— |
Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant submits that the contested order should be annulled on the following grounds:
|
— |
The reasoning of the General Court is defective; |
|
— |
The General Court did not consider the arguments advanced by the holder of the trade mark. |