Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 May 2005 in Case T-22/04: Reemark Gesellschaft für Markenkooperation mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community Trade Mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Westlife — Earlier national mark West — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs)
Date: 2005-07-09
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), book trade, clothing, music, recording medium, trade-mark law

9.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/19

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 26 April 2005

in Case T-431/03: Liam O'Bradaigh v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Public service — Reopening of an internal competition —
Non-entry on the list of suitable candidates)

(2005/C 171/33)

(Language of the case: French)

the European Economic

the
In Case T-431/03: Liam O'Bradaigh, a member of
temporary staff of
and Social
Committee (ECOSOC), residing in Mechelen (Belgium), repre-
sented by J.-N. Louis, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen and E. Marchal,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall
and H. Kraemer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) —
application for annulment of
the selection
board for internal competition COM/TB/99 awarding the appli-
cant, for his oral test, a mark insufficient for his name to be
entered on the list of suitable candidates drawn up following
the competition,
Instance (Single Judge:
J. Pirrung); I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
judgment on 26 April 2005 in which it:

the Court of First

the decision of

Koch Moreno, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: S.
Laitinen), the other party to the proceedings before the Board
of Appeal of OHIM being Bluenet Ltd, established in Limerick
(Ireland) — application for annulment of the decision of the
Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 November 2003 (Case
R 238/2002-2) relating to opposition proceedings brought by
the holder of the mark West against the application for the
mark Westlife — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papa-
savvas, Judges; B. Pastor, Assistant Registrar, for the Registrar,
gave a judgment on 4 May 2005, in which it:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) of 17 November 2003 (Case R 238/2002-2);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and those incurred by the

applicant.

(1) OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(1) OJ No C 47 of 21.02.04.

of 4 May 2005

in Case T-30/04 João Andrade Sena v European Aviation
Safety Agency (1)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 4 May 2005

(AESA staff — Rejection of candidature for the post of
Executive Director — Recruitment procedure — Statement of
reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of good
administration)

in Case T-22/04: Reemark Gesellschaft für Markenkoopera-
tion mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community Trade Mark — Opposition proceedings —
Application for Community word mark Westlife — Earlier
national mark West — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity
of the signs)

(2005/C 171/34)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case T-22/04: Reemark Gesellschaft für Markenkooperation
mbH, established in Hamburg (Germany), represented by P.

(2005/C 171/35)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-30/04: João Andrade Sena, residing in Rhode-Saint-
Genèse (Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and
A. Finchelstein, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against European Aviation Safety Agency (AESA) (Agent
M. Junkkari assisted by D. Waelbroeck and I. Antypas, lawyers)
— application for annulment of AESA's decisions to reject the