Case T-355/00: Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrysler AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2001-01-27
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Germany, action for annulment (EU), motor vehicle industry, trade mark

C 28/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.1.2001

In support of his application the applicant alleges that:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— there is nothing in the Act of 20 September 1976 or in
the Rules of Procedure of
the European Parliament
permitting the Member States to terminate, for national
reasons, the term of office of an MEP, other than in cases
of incompatibilities arising during the term of office,
which is not the case here;

— such a measure is all the more contrary to the principles
of Community law inasmuch as it is the result of an
entirely national decision, which cannot by itself be the
basis for a Community decision;

— 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 Case
R 142/2000-3,

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

(Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— there is a general legal principle based on the generally
applicable rules of law of the Member States which means
that termination must be decided by the parliamentary
assembly concerned itself;

Mark:

Goods or services:

— the substantive procedural rules have been disregarded in
the present case inasmuch as the Legal Affairs Committee
was not convened and the applicant was not given a
hearing by that committee;

— in the contested measure, the President of the European
Parliament purportedly spoke on behalf of the Parliament
when she did not have the authority to do so.

Finally,
parliamentary immunity and legal certainty.

the applicant alleges breach of

the principles of

Decision
beforethe
Appeal:

contested
of

Board

Pleas in law:

Word mark ‘TELE AID’ — Appli-
cation No 469 957

Goods and services in Classes 12,
9, 37, 38, 39 and 42 (including
motor vehicles, motor vehicle
repair, equipment for the trans-
mission of speech and data, emer-
gency call
for motor
systems
vehicles, breakdown assistance,
rescue services)

Refusal by the examiner to register

— 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 (Trade Marks and Designs)

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

(Case T-355/00)

(2001/C 28/51)

(Case T-356/00)

(2001/C 28/52)

(Language of the case: German)

(Language of the case: German)

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

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