and cost effective manner, and that DHLI's growing profits were
use of the trademark by DHLI. In this context, the taxpayer made three
First, that no royalty was due from DHLI for the use of the
DHL trademark because DHLI was a developer of the trademark.
because the mutual agency agreement granted both DHL and DHLI reciprocal
(269) Finally, the taxpayer argued that DHLI's agreements
court determined that DHLI was the developer of the trademark (see
and noted that this equaled the rate which DHL had agreed to pay DHLI
for use of the trademark after the transfer of the trademark to DHLI.
licensing agreement between DHL and DHLI, that DHLI could not be a
DHLI was an assister under the regulations, and that any allocation of
In reaching this allocation, the Tax Court disagreed with valuing the trade name by including goodwill or other intangibles associated with the name, noting that DHLI
was responsible for developing the network infrastructure and foreign component of the name.