Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

15.6.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 144/43

—
**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE** _‘rental and leasing of data processing equipment; booking_
_and payment processing programming; providing of food_
_and drink; arranging and/or reserving hotel or guesthouse_
**20 March 2002** _accommodation’ within Class 42;_

2. _As to the remainder, dismisses the action;_
**in Case T-356/00: DaimlerChrysler AG v Office for**
**Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and** 3. _Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and half of the_
**Designs) (OHIM)** ( [1] ) _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**_ ( [1] ) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
_**(EC) No 40/94)**_

(2002/C 144/90)

_(Language of the case: German)_
**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE**

**20 March 2002**

In Case T-356/00, DaimlerChrysler AG, established in Stuttgart
**in Case T-358/00: DaimlerChrysler AG v Office for**
(Germany), represented by S. Völker, lawyer, v Office for
**Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and**
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
**Designs) (OHIM)** ( [1] )
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and D. Schennen): Action brought against the decision of the Third Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal _**(Community trade mark — ‘TRUCKCARD’ — Absolute**_
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2000 _**grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation**_
(Case R 477/1999-3) relating to registration of the word _**(EC) No 40/94)**_
‘CARCARD’ as a Community trade mark, the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
(2002/C 144/91)
of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given
a judgment on 20 March 2002, in which it:
_(Language of the case: German)_

1. _Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office_
_for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and_ In Case T-358/00, DaimlerChrysler AG, established in Stuttgart
_Designs) of 12 September 2000 (Case R 477/1999-3) as_ (Germany), represented by S. Völker, lawyer, v Office for
_regards the following categories of goods and services:_ Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and D. Schennen): Action brought against the decision of the Third Board

—
_‘stationary and transportable data processing equipment;_ of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
_programmes on data carriers for data and/or text and/or_ Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2000
_image processing’ within Class 9;_ (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

—
_‘arranging and processing of the payment of charges,_ of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Men_namely telephone charges; financing and sales financing_ gozzi and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given
_including arrangement thereof; processing of payments for_ a judgment on 20 March 2002, in which it:
_services and guarantees’ within Class 36;_

1. _Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office_
— _‘arranging of services and guarantees’ within Class 37;_ _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:_

—
_‘arranging of telecommunications services, namely tele-_

—
_phones, speech recording services, information services;_ _stationary and transportable data processing equipment;_
_telecommunications services, namely telephones, speech_ _programmes on data carriers for data and/or text and/or_
_recording services, information services’ within Class 38;_ _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,_ sets imported from Turkey — the Court of First Instance
_namely telephone charges; financing and sales financing_ (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, and
_including arrangement thereof; processing of payments for_ K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
_services and guarantees’ within Class 36;_ order on 21 March 2002, the operative part of which is as
follows:

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

1. _There is no need to give a decision on the present application;_

—
_‘arranging of telecommunications services, namely tele-_
_phones, speech recording services, information services;_
_telecommunications services, namely telephones, speech_ 2. _The Commission is to pay all the costs._
_recording services, information services’ within Class 38;_

—
_‘rental and leasing of data processing equipment; booking_ ( [1] ) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
_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._
**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**
(2002/C 144/93)

**in Case T-355/99: Vatinel N.V. v Commission of the**
**European Communities** ( [1] )
_(Language of the case: German)_

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

(2002/C 144/92) In Case T-337/00: Firma Sarah Tex Textil Groß- und Einzelhandel GmbH, established in Essen (Germany), represented by
D. Ehle, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
_(Language of the case: French)_ 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,
In Case T-355/99: Vatinel N.V., established in Antwerp addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany and relating to
(Belgium), represented by M. Famchon, lawyer, with an address a remission of import duties — the Court of First Instance
for service in Luxembourg, supported by the Kingdom of the (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. D. Cooke, President, and
Netherlands (Agents: J. van Bakel and H. G. Sevenster), v R. Garcı´a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Tricot made an order on 4 March 2002, the operative part of which
and J. Stuyck) — application for annulment of the Com- is as follows:
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 1. _There is no need to give a decision on the present application;_