- 93 -
of the DHL/DHLI relationship. He also opined that DHLI was a
licensee of the trademark, and nothing in the trademark law
served to change that relationship between DHL and DHLI.
Respondent’s expert’s conclusions are based, in part, on DHL
and DHLI’s agreement that New York law would govern the trademark
issue beginning in 1990 and that the 1974 MOA contained an
arbitration clause under the laws existing in the U.S. District
Court in the Territory of Guam.
Petitioners offered three experts on the question of
trademark ownership, two professors, each with 30 years’
experience in this field, and a British solicitor who specializes
in trademarks in the United Kingdom and other countries. Both
professors, when measuring the written agreements between DHL and
DHLI against the exacting standards of trademark law, concluded
that DHL owned the trademark rights within the United States and
DHLI owned the rights outside the United States. The solicitor
concluded, by means of a six-issue analysis, that the trademark
was not “an indivisible global asset owned by DHL” and that a
decision of a court of the United States would not affect DHLI’s
rights in the existing registrations in foreign countries.
The reports and testimony of the experts provided the Court
with helpful guidance in this technical and specialized area of
the law. To some extent, we agree with each of the parties’
experts. Petitioners’ experts defined the strict letter of the
law to perfect and maintain trademarks in the United States and
Page: Previous 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011