CELEX: 62011CN0081
Language: en
Date: 2011-02-22 00:00:00
Title: 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

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.