do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-316/11 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 September 2011 — Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Biofarma SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM — Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the period prescribed — Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring that the appeal is deemed not to have been filed)
Date: 2011-09-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012025EN.01002401.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/24






Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 September 2011 — Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Biofarma SA
(Case C-316/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM - Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the period prescribed - Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring that the appeal is deemed not to have been filed)
(2012/C 25/42)
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), Biofarma SA

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 April 2011 in Case T-96/11 Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Biofarma by which that court dismissed an action brought by the applicant for word mark ‘VITACHRON FEMALE’ for goods and services in, inter alia, class 5 against Decision R 1357/2010-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 10 January 2011, declaring that the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision — which refused registration of that mark in the opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the national marks ‘VITATHION’ for goods and services in class 5 — was deemed not to have been filed since the appeal fee had not been paid within the time-limit.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Longevity Health Products, Inc. shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
Case T-512/10: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Nike International v OHIM (DYNAMIC SUPPORT) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark DYNAMIC SUPPORT — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2011-09-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011319EN.01001803.xml










29.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/18





Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Nike International v OHIM (DYNAMIC SUPPORT)
(Case T-512/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark DYNAMIC SUPPORT - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2011/C 319/38
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nike International Ltd (Beaverton, Oregon, United States of America) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 August 2010 (case R 640/2010-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign DYNAMIC SUPPORT as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Nike International Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.
Case T-343/10: Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Etimine and Etiproducts v ECHA (Action for annulment — REACH — Identification of boric acid and disodium tetraborate, anhydrous as substances of very high concern — No direct concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2011-09-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical product, dangerous substance, disclosure of information, health risk








C_2011340EN.01002203.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/22





Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Etimine and Etiproducts v ECHA
(Case T-343/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - REACH - Identification of boric acid and disodium tetraborate, anhydrous as substances of very high concern - No direct concern - Inadmissibility)
2011/C 340/47
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Etimine SA (Bettembourg, Luxembourg); and AB Etiproducts Oy (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, Agents and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, Agents, and by K. Sawyer, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the ECHA, published on 18 June 2010, identifying boric acid (EC No 233-139-2) and disodium tetraborate, anhydrous (EC No 215-540-4) as substances meeting the criteria referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), and including those substances in the candidate list for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation No 1907/2006, in accordance with Article 59 of that regulation.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Etimine SA and AB Etiproducts Oy shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).










3.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.