- 96 -
trademark worldwide. Although there was some doubt about the
quality of DHL’s ownership of the international rights to the
trademark, the parties to the transaction in question treated DHL
as the worldwide owner. Only DHLI’s general counsel held the
view and expressed doubt about DHL’s ownership of the rights to
the trademark outside the United States. There can be no doubt
here, however, that the shareholders and principals of DHL and
DHLI/MNV intended that DHL own the trademark and that DHLI’s
interest was that of a licensee.
Petitioners attack the license terminology that they used to
cast the relationship between DHL and DHLI as to the trademark
and its use by arguing that the mere expression of the term
“license” does not establish and/or maintain a license
relationship. They argue that, without quality control exercised
by the trademark owner (licensor) over the licensee, the
requisite control of the trademark use and services performed by
the licensee would not exist.
However, respondent has shown by ample evidence in the
record that, as between DHL and DHLI, the requisite control did
exist. The existence of that control is found in the unique
relationship of the corporate entities, their shareholders, and
the manner in which the business entities were operated,
coordinated, and presented to the public as a worldwide delivery
network with the name “DHL”. Although the 1974 MOA and other
documents that defined the ownership, rights, and use of the
Page: Previous 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011