EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-473/11: Action brought on 30 August 2011 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Weleda Trademark (MENOCHRON)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0473

62011TN0473

August 30, 2011
With Google you find a lot.
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

22.10.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/45

(Case T-473/11)

2011/C 311/84

Language of the case: German

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 of OHIM: Weleda Trademark AG (Arlesheim, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

declare the action by the company Longevity Health Products Inc. admissible;

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 July 2011 in Case R 2345/2010-4 and reject the opposition by Weleda Trademark AG to the trade mark registration CTM 005050752; and

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Longevity Health Products, Inc.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘MENOCHRON’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Weleda Trademark AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘MENODORON’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 44.

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 207/2009, because there is no likelihood that the marks at issue would be confused.

Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia