- 130 -
the parties to the transaction reached an “arm’s-length” value of
$20 million?
We find, on this record, that DHL established the trademark
and is the developer within the meaning of the regulations. Even
if DHLI had, to some extent, assisted in developing the
trademark, petitioners have not shown that DHLI expended any more
than an arm’s-length amount in connection with a licensee’s use,
development, enhancement, or maintenance of the trademark. More
significantly, the DHL network is a related group of entities
that pursued the expansion of the network in concert.
Petitioners have attempted to mix the registration and
advertising costs. The mere filing of the registrations does not
make DHLI the developer of the trademark. Moreover, the
advertising, both within and without the United States, was
promoting or marketing DHL’s worldwide network. Customers in any
country were intended to understand that their item could be
delivered anywhere in the world, including the United States,
Europe, the Far East, etc. Accordingly, advertising in one part
of the world easily could have generated responsive business from
the destination location.
Finally, we have not been provided with the means to
evaluate the effect of the advertising on the value of the DHL
trademark. In order to attribute or limit any or all of DHLI’s
and/or MNV’s advertising costs solely to the value of the DHL
trademark outside the United States, petitioners would have to
Page: Previous 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011