- 91 -
DHL’s consent. DHLI, however, caused registrations of the DHL
trademark in numerous countries in which the DHL network provided
services. Those registrations were in the name of DHLI and/or
its related international entities and did not reflect that DHL
owned or licensed the trademark. In addition, DHLI’s general
counsel contended, in spite of written agreements to the
contrary, that DHLI owned the trademark rights outside the United
States because of DHLI’s foreign registration of the trademark.
With this somewhat generalized background, we consider the
positions of the parties and their experts on the question of
ownership of the DHL trademark. Petitioners contend that DHL
owned the rights inside and DHLI owned them outside the United
States. Respondent contends that DHL owned the worldwide rights
before the transaction with the foreign investors.
Respondent makes a three-point argument in support of the
position that DHL owned the worldwide rights in the trademark.
First, respondent argues that, as a matter of trademark law, DHLI
was contractually cast as a licensee and that the requisite
control existed as between the licensor and licensee to maintain
and perfect DHL’s trademark ownership. Second, respondent argues
that petitioners may not disavow the form they chose and that the
1974 MOA, subsequent amendments, and other documentation placed
ownership in DHL. Finally, if we find that the requisites for
trademark ownership were not extant, respondent argues that the
Page: Previous 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011