CELEX: 62011TN0473
Language: en
Date: 2011-08-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-473/11: Action brought on 30 August 2011 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Weleda Trademark (MENOCHRON)

22.10.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 311/45
            
         Action brought on 30 August 2011 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Weleda Trademark (MENOCHRON)
   (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, (1) because there is no likelihood that the marks at issue would be confused.
   
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).