- 119 -
when DHL attempted to expand its domestic market share and, to
some extent, was unable to compete with the established market
leaders which had operating cost-effective infrastructures in
place. That same phenomenon occurred when a successful leader in
the domestic delivery market attempted to break into the European
market. In that instance, it was the DHL network in place in
foreign countries that, to some extent, limited the competitor’s
market entry success. Finally, in some circumstances it has been
shown that the trademark or name is of lesser value to a firm
with an established trademark or name that wishes expansion and,
ultimately, needs only the infrastructure and know-how to be
successful. Accordingly, we are convinced that intangibles,
other than the trademark, account for some portion of the income
benefits that have been estimated by the parties’ experts.
In the same manner as we have disagreed with respondent’s
experts’ opinions that all the value of intangibles should be
attributed to the trademark, we likewise disagree that all or
substantially all of the excess or intangible value should be
attributed to nontrademark intangibles. The answer lies
somewhere in between. Some of the factors we have considered
include the fact that the $50 million amount set by the foreign
investors in their initial offer was not based on value but
instead was intended to bolster DHL’s financial condition so as
to maintain it as a viable part of the DHL network. The
reduction from $50 to $20 million was not based on the objective
Page: Previous 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011