- 60 -
agreement was terminated; (3) petitioners’ exercising reasonable
diligence to prevent infringement; and (4) prompt notice of
infringement. Petitioners had no right to decide whether to
bring an infringement action. If an infringement action was
brought, petitioners had to cooperate completely, had to
prosecute the action, and had to bear the cost thereof unless
Dutchco elected to control the action. Petitioners further
covenanted that they would use their best efforts to promote the
trademark, that they would not register any of the trademarks or
any similar trademark in the United States or any other nation,
and that they would not use the trademark of any competitor or
use the DHL trademark in any way not authorized by the RORA.
The RORA imposed quality controls on DHL’s manner and use of
the trademark, and DHL could be required to change its manner and
use. After the RORA was executed, DHLI decided issues relating
to the use of the DHL trademark. The RORA granted petitioners a
license to use the DHL trademark for 15 years royalty free.
After the 15-year period, the RORA called for a royalty of .75
percent of DHL’s gross sales for its delivery business. Of the
$20 million price for the DHL trademark, representatives for DHLI
and DHL allocated $17 million to the U.S. rights and $3 million
to the non-U.S. rights.
Page: Previous 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011