- 133 -
doctrine as it relates to a trademark; and (3) the Alstores
doctrine does not apply in the factual setting of these cases.
We agree that the Alstores doctrine does not apply in the factual
setting of these cases.
We have undertaken a complete analysis of the trademark
value in these cases. We have decided that DHL owned the
worldwide rights to the DHL trademark sold the worldwide rights,
and that a section 482 adjustment should be made to DHL’s 1992
income to reflect the adjusted fair market value of the
trademark. Unlike the Alstores case, here the total value of the
trademark has been considered, and the factual predicate for
additional value does not exist. In Alstores, the Court, to some
extent, filled the gap between the $1 million asking price and
the negotiated $750,000 price with the value of the rent-free use
retained by the seller. No such gap in value exists here.
Accordingly, we hold that there was no compensation in addition
to the value we have decided for the trademark.
V. Allocation of DHLI Income to DHL From Imputed Royalties,
Imbalance, Transfer, and Network Fees for the Period 1974 Through
1992
A. Background
In addition to making allocations regarding the selling
price of the DHL trademark, respondent also made adjustments
allocating DHLI income to DHL attributable to royalties for use
Page: Previous 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011