This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011CN0081
Case C-81/11 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-363/09: Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gruppo Lepetit SpA
Case C-81/11 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-363/09: Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gruppo Lepetit SpA
Case C-81/11 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-363/09: Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gruppo Lepetit SpA
SL C 139, 7.5.2011, p. 14–14
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
7.5.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 139/14 |
Appeal brought on 22 February 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-363/09: Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gruppo Lepetit SpA
(Case C-81/11 P)
2011/C 139/25
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)
Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gruppo Lepetit SpA
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
admit the appeal filed by the company Longevity Health Products, Inc. |
|
— |
annul the decision of the General Court of 16 December 2010 in case T-363/09 |
|
— |
order the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market to pay the costs |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant submits that the General Court violated its right to due process of law by failing to grant a time period for the appellant to reply to the submissions of OHIM.
It is also submitted that the General Court did not deal with the arguments advanced by the holder of the trademark concerning the likelihood of confusion.