- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-161/10: Action brought on 8 April 2010 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Tecnifar (E-PLEX)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0161
62010TN0161
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
5.6.2010
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 148/47
(Case T-161/10)
2010/C 148/77
Language in which the application was lodged: English
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: Tecnifar — Industria Tecnica Farmaceutica, SA (Lisbon, Portugal)
Form of order sought
—Admit the complaint filed by the applicant;
—Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 February 2010 in case R 662/2009-4 and dismiss the opposition filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal with respect to pharmaceutical and veterinary medical products with the exception of medicinal products for diseases related to the central nervous system; and
—Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “E-PLEX”, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 35
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Mark or sign cited: Portuguese trade mark registration of the word mark “EPILEX”, for goods in class 5
Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially allowed the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.