Case T-365/00: Action brought on 29 November 2000 by Alsace International Car Service (A.I.C.S.) against European Parliament
Date: 2001-01-27
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), award of contract, parliament, public contract, taxi, vehicle rental

27.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/29

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2000 in appeal
No R 477/1999-3;

— Set aside the decision of 12 September 2000 by the Third
Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) in Case
R 569/1999-3;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

(Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trademarks and Designs) to pay the costs of the present
proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The trade mark con-
cerned:

Verbal mark ‘CARCARD’ — appli-
cation No 115 014

Goods or services con-
cerned:

Goods and services in Classes 9,
36, 37, 38, 39, 42 (including
data media for vehicles, leasing of
motor vehicles and accounting in
that regard, arranging the pro-
vision of services in the field of
traffic and transport
logistics,
emergency assistance, repairs and
towing-away services)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Trade mark concerned:

Verbal trade mark ‘TRUCKCARD’,
Application No 113 274

Goods or service:

Goods and services in Classes 9,
36, 37, 38, 39, 42 (inter alia, data
carrier for vehicle data,
leasing
of motor vehicles and calculation
thereof, provision of services in
the areas of traffic and transport
logistics, emergency, repair and
vehicle-removal services)

Decision
before
Appeal:

contested
the Board of

Refusal of
examiner

registration by the

Decision
before
Appeal:

challenged
the Board of

Refusal of
examiner

registration by the

Grounds of claim:

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrys-
ler AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs)

Action brought on 29 November 2000 by Alsace Inter-
national Car Service (A.I.C.S.) against European Parlia-
ment

(Case T-358/00)

(2001/C 28/53)

(Language of the case: German)

(Case T-365/00)

(2001/C 28/54)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trademarks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrysler AG, Stuttgart (Germ-
any), represented by Stefan Völker, Rechtsanwalt, of Gleiss
Lutz Hootz Hirsch, Stuttgart, Germany.

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
29 November 2000 by Alsace International Car Service
(A.I.C.S.), whose registered office is at Strasbourg (France),
represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar.

C 28/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.1.2001

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the decision of

the European Parliament of
4 October 2000 refusing to terminate TAXI 13’s contract;

— subject to the appeal against the Case T-139/99, order
the Parliament to pay, pursuant to Article 288 of the EC
Treaty, compensation at a monthly rate of EUR 10 000
from 4 October 2000 until TAXI 13’s contract
is
terminated;

— order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

mission. The pleas in law and main arguments are substantially
the same as those put forward in that case.

The applicant submits in particular that:

— French law prohibits taxi

firms from carrying on a
business which is incompatible with the specific rules
which enable them to benefit from the advantages under
the memorandum and articles of association, according
to a final judgment of the Strasbourg Criminal Court
delivered on 7 April 2000.

— the European Parliament was aware that awarding the

contract in question to TAXI 13 was illegal.

The problem raised by the present case is related to that in
Case T-139/99 (1) Alsace International Car Service v Com-

(1) Not yet published.