- 22 -
petitioner's initial letter and the program generated increasing
income for petitioner each year do not speak to whether the
income was a royalty.
3. Activities of MSU and PB&T
Respondent contends that the article in Alumnus written
about the credit card program is an activity by petitioner. We
disagree; the article was written by the Office of University
Relations, not petitioner. Respondent points out that the
article said: "Additional information on the Bulldog Card can be
obtained by calling the MSU Alumni Association * * * or The
Peoples Bank", and contends that this shows petitioner was
marketing the credit card program. We disagree. It merely means
that the author was telling readers that petitioner had
information about the credit card program.
Respondent contends that petitioner permitted PB&T to
distribute credit card applications at a football game. We have
not so found because the record indicates that MSU, not
petitioner, permitted PB&T to conduct this activity.
Respondent suggests that petitioner was involved in
employing MSU students to insert credit card applications in bags
at the MSU bookstore. There is no basis in the record for
respondent's suggestion.
4. Petitioner's Marketing Coordinator
Respondent contends that petitioner's hiring of a marketing
coordinator shows that the payments at issue were for services
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011