- 88 -
brand was valuable and, to some extent, was a drawing factor for
potential customers. The affiliation with a major chain also has
a beneficial effect on Hyatt hotel owners’ attempts to secure
financing. Petitioners’ experts minimized and attempted to play
down the fact that some Hyatt International hotel guests were
from the United States.24 Hyatt Domestic’s promotion of the
Hyatt name and referral of guests to Hyatt International
contributed some value to the Hyatt trade names and marks to
Hyatt International, especially when viewed 10 years out and
later.25 Overall, we disagree with petitioners and hold that the
Hyatt trade names and marks had some importance or value to the
Hyatt International group.
In the event that we might decide the Hyatt names and marks
had value, petitioners advanced the alternative argument that the
Hyatt International group’s use of the names and marks represents
the arm’s-length consideration and provides reciprocal benefits
to Hyatt Domestic. While it is possible that a similar benefit
24 As would be expected, the percentage varied from
location to location, particularly in Mexico, Puerto Rico, and
Central America.
25 We reiterate that $10,000 was paid for each hotel
without regard for the time value of money or the passage of
time. As of the years under consideration, when the number of
hotels had increased and the name use and recognition must have
increased, the $10,000 was the standard, unchanged from 1968. In
1975 there were 19 hotels, and by 1988 about 40 (without
considering those in Mexico). From 1975 to 1988 HIC's gross
management revenue increased fivefold.
Page: Previous 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011