- 86 -
brushed manner, each side generally sought to convince us that
there should or should not be a royalty allocation. In that
setting, we undertake our analysis of the value of royalties
attributable to the names and marks.
In a recent Memorandum Opinion of this Court, a trademark
was described as:
a marketplace device by which consumers identify goods
and services and their source. In the context of
trademark nomenclature, a trademark symbolizes
“goodwill” or the likelihood that consumers will make
future purchases of the same goods and services. In a
licensing arrangement, the goodwill symbolized by the
trademark is owned by the licensor, even though created
by the licensee’s efforts. See, e.g., Cotton Ginny,
Ltd. v. Cotton Gin, Inc., 691 F. Supp. 1347 (S.D. Fla.
1988).
DHL Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-461.
In another Memorandum Opinion, it was explained that:
Trademark recognition develops from years of adver-
tising, consistent packaging, promotional campaigns,
customer service, and quality control. Depending on
the strength of a trademark, the maintenance of the
desired consumer awareness level generally requires
significant, continuing advertising investment and
product renovation. Trademarks lose substantial value
without adequate investment, management, marketing,
advertising, and sales organization.
Nestle Holdings, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-441, revd.
and remanded on other grounds 152 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 1998).
Petitioners’ expert (Mercer) found little evidence of any
value of the Hyatt trade names and marks when used by Hyatt
International hotels. This conclusion was based on Mercer’s
Page: Previous 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011