CELEX: C2001/028/54
Language: en
Date: 2001-01-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-365/00: Action brought on 29 November 2000 by Alsace International Car Service (A.I.C.S.) against European Parliament

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            —     Set aside the decision of 12 September 2000 by the Third
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                  Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
      Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2000 in appeal                       the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) in Case
      No R 477/1999-3;                                                        R 569/1999-3;
—     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market         —     Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
      (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.                             (Trademarks and Designs) to pay the costs of the present
                                                                              proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The trade mark con-           Verbal mark ‘CARCARD’ — appli-
cerned:                       cation No 115 014
                                                                        Trade mark concerned:         Verbal trade mark ‘TRUCKCARD’,
                                                                                                      Application No 113 274
Goods or services con-        Goods and services in Classes 9,
cerned:                       36, 37, 38, 39, 42 (including
                              data media for vehicles, leasing of       Goods or service:             Goods and services in Classes 9,
                              motor vehicles and accounting in                                        36, 37, 38, 39, 42 (inter alia, data
                              that regard, arranging the pro-                                         carrier for vehicle data, leasing
                              vision of services in the field of                                      of motor vehicles and calculation
                              traffic and transport logistics,                                        thereof, provision of services in
                              emergency assistance, repairs and                                       the areas of traffic and transport
                              towing-away services)                                                   logistics, emergency, repair and
                                                                                                      vehicle-removal services)
Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of           examiner                                  Decision        challenged    Refusal of registration by the
Appeal:                                                                 before the Board of           examiner
                                                                        Appeal:
Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                  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                                         — 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                      Action brought on 29 November 2000 by Alsace Inter-
          Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs)                      national Car Service (A.I.C.S.) against European Parlia-
                                                                                                      ment
                        (Case T-358/00)
                                                                                                 (Case T-365/00)
                         (2001/C 28/53)
                                                                                                  (2001/C 28/54)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trademarks and Designs) was brought before the                  An action against the European Parliament was brought before
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                  the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrysler AG, Stuttgart (Germ-               29 November 2000 by Alsace International Car Service
any), represented by Stefan Völker, Rechtsanwalt, of Gleiss             (A.I.C.S.), whose registered office is at Strasbourg (France),
Lutz Hootz Hirsch, Stuttgart, Germany.                                  represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar.
 ---pagebreak--- C 28/30               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  27.1.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           mission. The pleas in law and main arguments are substantially
                                                                      the same as those put forward in that case.
—     annul the decision of the European Parliament of
      4 October 2000 refusing to terminate TAXI 13’s contract;
                                                                      The applicant submits in particular that:
—     subject to the appeal against the Case T-139/99, order
      the Parliament to pay, pursuant to Article 288 of the EC        —    French law prohibits taxi firms from carrying on a
      Treaty, compensation at a monthly rate of EUR 10 000                 business which is incompatible with the specific rules
      from 4 October 2000 until TAXI 13’s contract is                      which enable them to benefit from the advantages under
      terminated;                                                          the memorandum and articles of association, according
                                                                           to a final judgment of the Strasbourg Criminal Court
—     order the Parliament to pay the costs.                               delivered on 7 April 2000.
                                                                      —    the European Parliament was aware that awarding the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            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.