Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 April 2014 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Weleda Trademark (MENOCHRON)

(Case T‑473/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark MENOCHRON — Earlier Community word mark MENODORON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Direction issued to the Office — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 15)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 28, 30, 36, 45)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks MENOCHRON and MENODORON (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 44, 46)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Weighting of the marks concerned — Taking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the conditions in which the goods or services are marketed (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 48)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 July 2010 (Case R 2345/2010‑4), relating to an opposition procedure between Weleda Trademark AG and Longevity Health Products, Inc.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Longevity Health Products, Inc. to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 April 2014 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Weleda Trademark (MENOCHRON)

(Case T‑473/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark MENOCHRON — Earlier Community word mark MENODORON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Direction issued to the Office — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 15)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 28, 30, 36, 45)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks MENOCHRON and MENODORON (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 44, 46)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Weighting of the marks concerned — Taking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the conditions in which the goods or services are marketed (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 48)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 July 2010 (Case R 2345/2010‑4), relating to an opposition procedure between Weleda Trademark AG and Longevity Health Products, Inc.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;