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 62011CN0378

Case C-378/11 P: Appeal brought on 21 June 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15 April 2011 in Case T-95/11: Longevity Health Products v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

SL C 269, 10.9.2011, p. 38–38 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
21/06/2011
Date lodged:
15/04/2011
Author:
Sud
Form:
Pravosudna informacija
Authentic language:
engleski

10.9.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/38

Appeal brought on 21 June 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15 April 2011 in Case T-95/11: Longevity Health Products v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-378/11 P)

2011/C 269/79

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-95/11;

—

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.
Top