Judgment of the Court of First Instance 20 March 2002 in Case T-358/00: DaimlerChrysler AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — "TRUCKCARD" — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
Date: 2002-06-15
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Germany, action for annulment (EU), motor vehicle industry, trade mark

15.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 144/43

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

20 March 2002

in Case T-356/00: DaimlerChrysler AG v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (1)

— ‘rental and leasing of data processing equipment; booking
and payment processing programming; providing of food
and drink; arranging and/or reserving hotel or guesthouse
accommodation’ within Class 42;

2. As to the remainder, dismisses the action;

3. Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and half of the
defendant’s costs; the defendant is to pay the other half of its
own costs.

(Community trade mark — ‘CARCARD’ — Absolute
grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94)

(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.

(2002/C 144/90)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-356/00, DaimlerChrysler AG, established in Stuttgart
lawyer, v Office for
(Germany), represented by S. Völker,
Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and D. Schen-
nen): Action brought against 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
(Case R 477/1999-3) relating to registration of the word
‘CARCARD’ as a Community trade mark, the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Men-
gozzi and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given
a judgment on 20 March 2002, in which it:

1. Annuls 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 (Case R 477/1999-3) as
regards the following categories of goods and services:

— ‘stationary and transportable data processing equipment;
programmes on data carriers for data and/or text and/or
image processing’ within Class 9;

— ‘arranging and processing of the payment of charges,
namely telephone charges; financing and sales financing
including arrangement thereof; processing of payments for
services and guarantees’ within Class 36;

— ‘arranging of services and guarantees’ within Class 37;

— ‘arranging of telecommunications services, namely tele-
information services;
phones, speech recording services,
telecommunications services, namely telephones, speech
recording services, information services’ within Class 38;

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

20 March 2002

in Case T-358/00: DaimlerChrysler AG v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark — ‘TRUCKCARD’ — Absolute
grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94)

(2002/C 144/91)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-358/00, DaimlerChrysler AG, established in Stuttgart
(Germany), represented by S. Völker,
lawyer, v Office for
(Trade Marks and
Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and D. Schen-
nen): Action brought against 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
(Case R 569/1999-3) relating to registration of the word
‘TRUCKCARD’ as a Community trade mark, the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Men-
gozzi and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given
a judgment on 20 March 2002, in which it:

1. Annuls 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 (Case R 569/1999-3) as
regards the following categories of goods and services:

— stationary and transportable data processing equipment;
programmes on data carriers for data and/or text and/or
image processing’ within Class 9;

C 144/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.6.2002

— ‘arranging and processing of the payment of charges,
namely telephone charges; financing and sales financing
including arrangement thereof; processing of payments for
services and guarantees’ within Class 36;

sets imported from Turkey — the Court of First Instance
(Third Chamber), composed of: M.
Jaeger, President, and
K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 21 March 2002, the operative part of which is as
follows:

— ‘arranging of services and guarantees’ within Class 37;

— ‘arranging of telecommunications services, namely tele-
phones, speech recording services,
information services;
telecommunications services, namely telephones, speech
recording services, information services’ within Class 38;

1.

2.

There is no need to give a decision on the present application;

The Commission is to pay all the costs.

— ‘rental and leasing of data processing equipment; booking
and payment processing programming; providing of food
and drink; arranging and/or reserving hotel or guesthouse
accommodation’ within Class 42;

(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.

2. As to the remainder, dismisses the action;

3. Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and half of the
defendant’s costs; the defendant is to pay the other half of its
own costs.

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.

of 4 March 2002

in Case T-337/00: Firma Sarah Tex Textil Groß- und
Einzelhandel GmbH v Commission of the European
Communities (1)

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the contested
measure — Case not proceeding to judgment)

of 21 March 2002

in Case T-355/99: Vatinel N.V. v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Action for annulment — Imports of television sets from
Turkey — Case not proceeding to judgment)

(2002/C 144/92)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-355/99: Vatinel N.V., established in Antwerp
(Belgium), represented by M. Famchon, lawyer, with an address
for service in Luxembourg, supported by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands (Agents: J. van Bakel and H. G. Sevenster), v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Tricot
and J. Stuyck) — application for annulment of the Com-
mission’s decision C(1999) 2286 final (REC 12/98) of 22 July
1999 declaring that post-clearance recovery should be effected
and refusing remission of import duties in respect of television

(2002/C 144/93)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-337/00: Firma Sarah Tex Textil Groß- und Einzelhan-
del GmbH, established in Essen (Germany), represented by
D. Ehle, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
supported by the Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: J. Molde), v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Tricot
and M. Nu´ n˜ ez Müller) — application for annulment of the
Commission’s decision C (2000) 1685 final of 29 June 2000,
addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany and relating to
a remission of import duties — the Court of First Instance
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. D. Cooke, President, and
R. Garcı´a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 4 March 2002, the operative part of which
is as follows:

1.

There is no need to give a decision on the present application;