- 31 -
did not attribute the name Dharma to DM's religious printing
business or state that they became petitioner's customers because
they associated the word Dharma with DM. Petitioner attracted
customers by the quality of its printing and low prices. There
is no evidence that petitioner's customers associated its quality
and prices with DM's business. At most, its customers associated
its name with Buddhism in general and not to DM's printing
business. DM has never used the names "Dharma Enterprises" or
"Skillful Means Press" in the printing business. DM did use the
name "Amber Lotus" beginning in 1986. Although there is no
evidence as to whether DM made Amber Lotus into a profitable
business before licensing it to petitioner, the name had some
value to petitioners. During the years in issue, petitioner's
Amber Lotus division accounted for approximately 7 percent of
gross sales. We hold that an unrelated third party would have
paid royalties for the trade names and trademarks in the amount
determined by AVG.
In addition to being a recognized trade name in the printing
business, petitioner maintains that the Dharma name identifies it
as a Dharma-authorized organization and enables it to hire low-
wage employees. The license agreement, as amended, purports to
grant to petitioner the right to present itself as an
organization sanctioned by an active Dharma lineage. Petitioner
maintains that AVG's comparison of the Dharma name with quick-
print trade names does not account for this value. We determine
that this alleged asset does not justify the royalty payments
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011