Tag: Trademark

Legally registered name, word, symbol or design which identifies the goods or services of a particular manufacturer, business or company.

Denmark vs Adecco A/S, Oct 2019, High Court, Case No SKM2019.537.OLR

Denmark vs Adecco A/S, Oct 2019, High Court, Case No SKM2019.537.OLR

The question in this case was whether royalty payments from a loss making Danish subsidiary Adecco A/S (H1 A/S in the decision) to its Swiss parent company Adecco SA (G1 SA in the decision – an international provider of temporary and permanent employment services active throughout the entire range of sectors in Europe, the Americas, the Middle East and Asia – for use of trademarks and trade names, knowhow, international network intangibles, and business concept were deductible expenses for tax purposes or not. In  2013, the Danish tax authorities (SKAT) had amended Adecco A/S’s taxable income for the years 2006-2009 by a total of DKK 82 million. “Section 2 of the Tax Assessment Act. Paragraph 1 states that, when calculating the taxable income, group affiliates must apply prices and terms for commercial or economic transactions in accordance with what could have been agreed if the transactions had been concluded between independent parties. SKAT does not consider it in accordance with section ... Continue to full case

France vs IKEA, May 2017, CAA of Versailles, No 15VE00571

The French tax authorities had issued an assessment for the fiscal years 2002, 2003 and 2004 related to royalty fees paid by IKEA France to foreign group companies. It was claimed that the royalty fees paid were exessive. The Court reject the position of the authorities. It had not been proven that the fees paid by IKEA France to foreign IKEA companies were excessive based on the arm’s length principle and on Article 57 of the CGI. The Court stresses the irrelevance of the comparables presented by the administration: “Considering that the nine trademarks used as comparables by the administration relate to the French market, the furniture sector and distribution methods similar to that of Ikea; that, however, as the company Ikea Holding France argues, the Minister does not give any precise indication on the content of the services rendered to the franchisees of these trademarks in return for their royalty; these trademarks are notoriously inferior to Ikea’s and they ... Continue to full case

Luxembourg vs Lux SA, December 2016, Administrative Tribunal Case No 36954

By a trademark license agreement dated August 22, 2008, a group company in Luxembourg granted another group company a non-exclusive right to use and exploit the brands registered in the territory of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Benelux and the European Community for an initial period of ten years, renewable tacitly each time for a period of one year and this against a license fee paid and calculated annually corresponding to 3% of this turnover. By letters of 30 January 2015, the Tax Office informed the company that they intended to refuse to deduct the royalties paid to the company for the years 2010, 2011 and 2010. Click here for translation Lux vs taxpayer 21 dec 2016 36954 ... Continue to full case

US v Coca-Cola, December 2015. US Tax Court

The Coca-Cola Company submitted a petition to the U.S. Tax Court, requesting a redetermination of the deficiencies in Federal income tax for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2008 and 2009, as set forth by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in a Notice of Deficiency dated September 15, 2015. The total amount in dispute is over $3.3 billion for the 3-year period. Major issues in the dispute include the method used to allocate profit to seven foreign subsidiaries, which use licensed trademarks and formulas to carry out the manufacture and sale of beverage concentrates in markets outside of the United States, as well as the application of correlative adjustments for foreign tax credits. The Coca-Cola Company claims that it used the same allocation method that had been reviewed and approved by the Internal Revenue Service during audits of tax years from 1996 through 2006, the same that was established in a Closing Agreement with respect to the 1987 through 1995 ... Continue to full case
Luxembourg vs LuxCo TM, December 2015, Administrative Court, Case No 33611

Luxembourg vs LuxCo TM, December 2015, Administrative Court, Case No 33611

LuxCo TM sold trademarks to a newly established sister company. The price had been set at €975,000. The tax authorities issued an assessment where the price had been set at €6,475,000 and the difference was considered to be hidden profit distribution. The Administrative court ruled in favor of the tax authorities. LuxCo TM’s valuation had been based on wrong facts and assumptions. Click here for translation Lux vs Luxco 10 dec 2015 33611 ... Continue to full case
India vs LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd, December 2014, ITA

India vs LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd, December 2014, ITA

LG India is a wholly owned subsidiary of LG Korea, a multinational manufacturer of electronic products and electrical appliances. LG Korea and LG India entered into a technical assistance and royalty agreement in 2001 where LG India, as a licensed manufacturer, would pay a 1% royalty to LG Korea for the use of various rights for the manufacture and sale of products in India. The agreement also gave LG India a royalty-free use of the LG brand name and trademarks. The tax tribunal in 2013 held that the advertising, marketing and promotion (AMP) expenditure in excess of the arm’s length range helps to promote the brand of the foreign associated enterprise and that the Indian associated enterprise should necessarily be compensated by the foreign one. In reaching the above conclusion, the special bench applied the “bright line” test used by a US Court in DHL Corp v Commissioner. The 2014 Appeal Case Lg_Electronics_India_Pvt._Ltd.,_..._vs_Assessee_on_8_December,_2014 The Prior 2013 Judgement from the ITA LG_Electronics_AMP_Expenditure_Bright_Line ... Continue to full case
Canada vs. GlaxoSmithKline. October 2012, Supreme Court

Canada vs. GlaxoSmithKline. October 2012, Supreme Court

The Canadian Supreme Court ruled in the case of GlaxoSmithKline Inc. regarding the intercompany prices established in purchases of ranitidine, the active ingredient used in the anti-ulcer drug Zantac, from a related party during years 1990 through 1993. The Supreme Court partially reversed an earlier determination by the Tax Court, upholding a determination by the Federal Court of Appeals in its conclusion that if other transactions are relevant in determining whether transfer prices are reasonable, these transactions should be taken into account. However, the Supreme Court did not determine whether the transfer pricing method used by GlaxoSmithKline Inc. was reasonable, and instead remitted the matter back to the Tax Court. Canada_Glaxo_Supreme-Court ... Continue to full case
India vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

India vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

Maruti Suzuki India manufactures and sells cars and spare parts. A license agreement had been entered with the group parent for use of licensed information and trademark for the manufacture and sale of the products. Hence, Maruti Suzuki paid royalties to the parent for trademark and technology. The tax administration made an adjustment where the royalty paid for use of the trademark was disallowed and where a reimbursement with mark-up for non-routine advertising, marketing and promotion of the brand name was imputed. The High Court, referred the case back to the tax administration with observations. If there is an agreement between the group parent and the taxpayer which carries an obligation on the taxpayer to use the trademark owned by the group parent. Such agreement should be accompanied either by an appropriate payment by the group parent or by a discount provided to the taxpayer. Appropriate payment should be made on account of benefit derived by the group parent in the form of marketing intangibles obtained from such mandatory ... Continue to full case
US vs. Veritas Software Corporation, December 2009

US vs. Veritas Software Corporation, December 2009

The issue in the VERITAS case involved the calculation of the buy-in payment under VERITAS’ cost sharing arrangement with its Irish affiliate. VERITAS US assigned all of its existing European sales agreements to VERITAS Ireland. Similarly,VERITAS Ireland was given the rights to use the covered intangibles and to use VERITAS US’s trademarks, trade names and service marks in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and in Asia-Pacific and Japan. In return, VERITAS Ireland agreed to pay royalties to VERITAS US in exchange for the rights granted. The royalty payment included a prepayment amount (i.e. lump-sum payment) along with running royalties that were subject to revision to maintain an arm’s length rate. Thereafter, VERITAS Ireland began co-developing, manufacturing and selling VERITAS products in the Europe, the Middle East and Africa markets as well as in the Asia-Pacific and Japan markets. These improvements, along with the establishment of new management, allowed VERITAS’ 2004 annual revenues to be five times higher than its 1999 revenues ... Continue to full case
Netherlands vs Shoe Corp, June 2007, District Court, Case nr. 05/1352, VSN June 2, 2007

Netherlands vs Shoe Corp, June 2007, District Court, Case nr. 05/1352, VSN June 2, 2007

This case is about a IP sale-and-license-back arrangement. The taxpayer acquired the shares in BV Z (holding). BV Z owns the shares in BV A and BV B (the three BVs form a fiscal unity under the CITA). BV A produces and sells shoes. In 1993, under a self-proclaimed protection clause, BV A sells the trademark of the shoes to BV C, which is also part of the fiscal unity. The protection clause was supposedly intended to protect the trademark in case of default of BV A. Taxpayer had created BV C prior to the sale of the trademark. In 1994, the taxpayer entered into a licensing agreement with BV C: the taxpayer pays NLG 2 to BV C per pair of shoes sold. Next, BV C is then moved to the Netherlands Antilles, which results in the end of the fiscal unity as of January 1, 1994. The roundtrip arrangement, the sale of an intangible and the subsequent payment of ... Continue to full case
US vs GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, September 2006, IR-2006-142

US vs GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, September 2006, IR-2006-142

In September 2006 the Internal Revenue Service announced that it has successfully resolved a transfer pricing dispute with Glaxo SmithKline. Under the settlement agreement, GSK will pay the Internal Revenue Service approximately $3.4 billion, and will abandon its claim seeking a refund of $1.8 billion in overpaid income taxes, as part of an agreement to resolve the parties’ long-running  transfer pricing dispute for the tax years 1989 through 2005. See also the GlaxoSmithKlein decision from july 2001 The IRS announcement US glaxosmithkline_no_5750-04_2006-irs__settlement ... Continue to full case
South Africa vs. B SA Limited, Aug 2005, Tax Court, Case No. 11454

South Africa vs. B SA Limited, Aug 2005, Tax Court, Case No. 11454

B SA Limited was incorporated in South Africa 9 May 1924. C plc is the controlling shareholder of the company. On 24 October 1979 B SA Limited amended paragraph 1 of its memorandum of association by adding the following to it: The corporate name “B SA Limited” is adopted and used by permission of (C) Limited. On withdrawal of that permission B SA Limited will cease to use such name and will immediately change its corporate name and trading name so that neither includes the mark (B) or any trade mark, trade name, name or other mark of ownership belonging to (C) Company Limited, or any other trade mark, trade name, name or other mark of ownership likely to be confused therewith. During 1996 C plc decided that users of its licensed marks and the licensed marketing indicia should be required to pay a royalty. To this end it commissioned an independent company to determine the value of its licensed ... Continue to full case
US vs. DHL. April 2002, U.S. Court of Appeals

US vs. DHL. April 2002, U.S. Court of Appeals

When DHL sold the “DHL” trademark to DHL International, the IRS disagreed with DHL’s evaluation of the arms-length price of the intellectual property and used its authority under Section 482 to reallocate income and impose penalties. DHL appealed the IRS ruling and the tax court upheld the IRS allocation to DHL. In this decision the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the tax court’s application of Section 482 to the sale of the trademark and the $100 million valuation for the intangible asset, but reversed the tax court’s rejection of a $50 million value of the foreign trademark rights, as asserted by DHL. DHL April 11 2002 United States Court of Appeals And the prior decision of the Tax Court US-vs.-DHL.TCM_.WPD ... Continue to full case
US vs Hyatt Group Holding, Inc. and Subsidiaries, October 1999, United States Tax Court, No T.C. Memo. 1999-334

US vs Hyatt Group Holding, Inc. and Subsidiaries, October 1999, United States Tax Court, No T.C. Memo. 1999-334

At issue in this case were (the lack of) royalties payments to Hyatt and Hyatt International from foreign subsidiaries. Hyatt US had not recieved royalties from its foreign Subsidiaries. The IRS had determined a 1.5 % rate of hotel gross revenues for foreign subsidiaries use of Hyatt trade names and trademarks. The Tax Court found the 1,5 % rate unreasonable, but did not accept taxpayer’s argument that no royalties were due either. The Tax Court instead found that 0,4 % of hotel gross revenues was an arm’s length charge. H Group Holding, Inc. and Subsidiaries, Formerly HG, Inc. and Subsidiaries, et al. v. Commissioner ... Continue to full case
US vs NESTLE HOLDINGS INC, July 1998, Court of Appeal, 2nd Circuit, Docket Nos 96-4158 and 96-4192

US vs NESTLE HOLDINGS INC, July 1998, Court of Appeal, 2nd Circuit, Docket Nos 96-4158 and 96-4192

In this case, experts had utilized the relief-from-royalty method in the valuation of trademarks. On this method the Court noted: “In our view, the relief-from-royalty method necessarily undervalues trademarks. The fair market value of a trademark is the price a willing purchaser would have paid a willing seller to buy the mark…The relief-from-royalty model does not accurately estimate the value to a purchaser of a trademark. Royalty models are generally employed to estimate an infringer’s profit from its misuse of a patent or trademark… Resort to a royalty model may seem appropriate in such cases because it estimates fairly the cost of using a trademark… However, use of a royalty model in the case of a sale is not appropriate because it is the fair market value of a trademark, not the cost of its use, that is at issue. A relief-from-royalty model fails to capture the value of all of the rights of ownership, such as the power to ... Continue to full case
France vs. SA Bossard Consultants, March 1998, Adm. Court, no 96pa00673N° 96PA00673

France vs. SA Bossard Consultants, March 1998, Adm. Court, no 96pa00673N° 96PA00673

A subsidiary company, which paid royalties for a licence of a trademark to its parent company, could not deduct part of the sums paid as a temporary increase of the royalties by one point because it could not justify the benefit from the use of the trademark. Click here for translation SA Bossard Consultants, March 1998, Adm. Court, no 96pa00673 ... Continue to full case