Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20January 2015—
Longevity Health Products v OHIM
(Case C‑311/14 P)(1)
Appeal— Community trade mark— Regulation (EC) No40/94— Article8(1)(b) —Application for registration of the Community word mark MENOCHRON— Opposition of the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark MENODORON— Likelihood of confusion
1.Appeals— Grounds— Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court— Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2)) (see paras 31, 32)
2.Appeals— Grounds— Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence— Inadmissibility— Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence— Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 33)
3.Appeals— Grounds— Error of law— Failure to take account of all of the relevant factors for the assessment of the likelihood of confusion, within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 38, 39)
Operative part
1. |
| The appeal is dismissed. |
2. |
| Longevity Health Products Inc. is ordered to bear its own costs. |
1 OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.