- 128 -
Overall, petitioners have not carried their burden of
showing the requisite fact pattern for the relief they
seek--reallocation/reduction for the international portion of the
trademark value. To some extent, our reduction of the trademark
value from $150 million to $100 million accounts for DHLI’s
efforts in registering and perfecting the trademark rights.
The related parties’ relationship regarding the use of the
DHL trademark was not a textbook example of a licensing
agreement, but it was sufficient to bind these related parties
and to effectuate control over the use of the trademark. There
was no agreement or evidence of an agreement to permit DHLI’s
separate development of the DHL trademark other than as a
licensee. DHL employees and/or officers did not agree, with
limited exceptions, to DHLI’s use or registration of the
trademark in its own name. Petitioners argue that the subject
regulations are not concerned with ownership, but, in the same
context, also argue that a trademark may be owned by different
interests and separately owned in different countries. We have
already addressed this question in considering the trademark
ownership.
Next, petitioners rely on language in section 1.482-
2(d)(1)(ii)(c), Income Tax Regs., which provides guidance as to
some of the factors to be considered in determining which member
of a group of related entities is a developer, as follows:
Of all the facts and circumstances to be taken into
account in making this determination, greatest weight
Page: Previous 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011