- 26 -
Respondent speculates that PB&T paid only petitioner's costs for
advertising in Alumnus, but the record does not so indicate.
Respondent contends that petitioner and PB&T had an
understanding that petitioner would participate in advertising
the credit cards. This contention is at odds with the contracts
between PB&T and petitioner and Grafton’s and Brown’s testimony
that there was no unwritten understanding. Petitioner did not
participate in advertising the credit cards.
8. Mailing List With MSU Students and Faculty
Respondent contends that petitioner gathered and gave to
PB&T the names and addresses of MSU faculty and the parents of
MSU students, that those names were not in petitioner's data
base, and that doing so was a service to PB&T. Respondent's
contention is speculative and based in part on the fact that
petitioner billed PB&T for 4,000 envelopes and sheets of
petitioner's stationery and for 3,124 mailing labels for the MSU
faculty and staff. There was no testimony about this bill. A
handwritten note on it says that it was for stationery and
supplies; it does not say that it was for services.
9. Olympic Gold Coin Program
Respondent contends that petitioner's participation in the
Olympic gold coin program shows that the payments from PB&T were
not royalties. We disagree. PB&T received a solicitation from a
vendor and offered to share with petitioner any commissions for
orders it received from petitioner's members. There were no
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011