- 140 -
should have been charged. That does not show that zero is an
arm’s-length royalty for purposes of these cases. No similar
transaction occurred outside the DHL network.
After reviewing the facts and circumstances and the experts’
reports, we agree with respondent that a royalty would have been
charged as between unrelated or arm’s-length parties. As to
petitioners’ argument that DHL received some benefit other than
cash, such benefits have not been quantified and/or shown to be
within the range of arm’s-length royalties. In that regard, it
is petitioners’ burden to show the royalty amounts and that they
are arm’s length, which they have failed to do.
The ability to deliver has value, and the recognized name
that customers will seek out for delivery service also has value.
The DHL name, as we have already found, has value, and its use
likewise has value. It is our understanding, however, that the
DHL name was not the only factor for the financial success
enjoyed by the DHL network. In a like manner to our discount of
the trademark value, we hold that a .75 percent royalty rate
would be appropriate in the circumstances of these cases. We
agree with respondent’s experts’ use of a royalty at the lower
end of the range and find the .75 percent amount is more
appropriate. Additionally, it is the rate used by the parties
after the foreign investors collectively had a majority
stockholding in the international portion of the DHL network. It
Page: Previous 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011