Trademark Valuation And Taxation

Trademark Valuation

Trademark is defined as a mark (may include symbols, colour, shape, packaging of goods, etc.) that encompasses the capability to geographically represent and distinguish the goods or services of one party from other parties.It is a set of rights that enables the use of such marks by the owner to the exclusion of other parties. Trademarks are an essential commercial and economic tool, and are, usually, heavily endorsed with the intention to build the brand value of the business.

Valuation of trademarks is a practice having great pertinence especially due to the rising number of cases wherein the value of intangible assets such as intellectual property is considered higher than that of the tangible assets, as was the case with Coca-Cola in the year 2006-07 wherein the balance sheet equity was valued at $16.92 billion whereas the market capitalization was at a whopping $124.42 billion. Trademarks are, therefore, valued for primarily three reasons:

  • Transactional purposes (not including matters of taxation).
  • Financial accounting purposes.
  • Taxation purposes.

The current article would be focusing upon the taxation aspect of trademark valuation.

Methods for Trademark Valuation

There are several methods for the valuation of trademark, however, there are three generally accepted approaches to it, which are as follows:

a. Cost Approach

This approach to valuation involves an assessment of the costs incurred during the creation and development of the trademark and, therefore, reflects the minimum value of the trademark. This method is, however, not always effective because the wide range of economic benefits accruing from trademarks is not successfully represented herein.

b. Market Approach

This approach seeks to compare and analyse the value of similarly situated trademarks (for example, businesses dealing with similar goods or services),which have been licensed or sold, to derive the value of the trademark being valuated.

c. Income Approach

This method is usually considered the most effective for valuating a trademark. It seeks to reach an estimation by the calculation of the present value of the future income that it is predicted to generate over the course of its remaining useful life (RUL).

Taxation Issues w.r.t. Trademarks

a. Cross-Border Use of IPR

One of the primary issues with regard to taxation of trademarks arises out of cross-border use of intellectual property rights. This may involve multinational entities (MNEs) licensing their IP to their subsidiaries (located in different countries), who, in turn, may or may not sub-license the IP to third-parties (franchisees/subsidiaries) functioning locally. In these instances, the company owning the IP may be established in a low-tax region and may charge royalties against the subsidiaries located in high tax regions, in an endeavour to avoid large tax cuts. A similar situation arose in the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Holdings dispute wherein the IRS (U.S.A.) increased the income of GSK’s U.S. subsidiary after taking into account the value of intangibles owned by its parent company, which was established in the U.K.

It is pertinent to note that several jurisdictions (including India) require such a company to ensure that the royalties charged do not exceed the respective ‘arm’s length rate’ (royalty rate charged in controlled transactions must be within the range of royalty rates charged in comparable uncontrolled transactions).In the Maruti Suzuki Ltd case, the Delhi High Court ruled on the transfer pricing aspects in instances wherein the promotional efforts of an associated entity significantly increases the value a trademark legally owned by another entity. The question considered herein was whether the income generated by the trademark is to be attributed to the IP owner (registered in a foreign country) or the affiliated entity (registered in India). It was held that if the advertising, marketing and promotional (AMP) expenditure of an affiliated entity is more than the ordinary expenditure that would’ve been incurred by an entity in a comparable situation, the IP owner is obligated to reasonably compensate for the same, and therefore, an estimation of the appropriate arm’s length royalty rate becomes crucial.

Furthermore, the aforementioned judgement refers to the ‘bright line test’ that was laid down by the U.S. Tax Court. The test states that if the investment of a licensee exceeds the routine expenditure expected out of it, that entity would be deemed to hold economic ownership over the IP. This test, though not explicitly stated, was also invoked in the previously mentioned GSK dispute.

b. Capital Gains or Business Income

In Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Mediworld Publications Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi High Court held that the income generated by the transfer of intangible assets (here, trademark and copyright) is in the nature of ‘capital gains’ and not ‘business income’, and are, therefore, taxable. The court clarified that ‘capital asset’ under S.2(14)[9] of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, can be inferred to be inclusive of intellectual property; and in accordance with S.2(11) of the Act, IP would be considered as an intangible asset serving as a means for earning profit. It was, further, held that sale of intangible assets such as trademarks would be covered by the proviso provided within S.28(va).

c. Situs of an Intangible Asset

Identification of the situs of a property is vital for taxation purposes, however, the process is complicated with regard to intangible property. In 2016, the Delhi High Court ruled, in concurrence with international principles, that the situs of the owner of the respective property would be deemed to be the situs of the intangible asset, regardless of the same being registered in India. This conclusion was reached by the court through a strict interpretation of S. 9 of the Act, which reasoned that the non-inclusion of IP under the provisions of S.9 clearly denoted the legislature’s intent to not tax IP owners situated outside India even if they reaped profits in India through their respective IPs.


The importance of valuation of intellectual property, like trademarks, is on the rise, and with it, the complications with regard to its taxation. Globalization and rapid technological development have led to vast unpredictability making it increasingly tedious to accurately valuate intangible assets. Corporations need to be mindful of such developments and must implement sufficient measures to safeguard their interests. Furthermore, the various disparities that exist in different jurisdictions make it all the more difficult for entities having engagements worldwide to reach a middle ground and ensure their compliance with tax regulations. Such discrepancies may also lead to double taxations being imposed on entities and therefore, clear and specific regulations pertaining to the issue at hand is a need of the hour.

Author:  Harsshita Pothiraj (intern), a III Year-B.B.A.LL.B., student of University School of Law & Legal Studies (GGSIPU, and Anubhav Gupta, Principal Associate- Taxation at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys.  In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at


[1]Trade Marks Act, 1999, No. 47/1999, s.2(zb).

[2]Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2016) 282 CTR (Del) 1.

[3]Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Mediworld Publications Pvt. Ltd., ILR (2011) 6 Del 203.

[4]Income-Tax Act, 1961, No. 43/1961, s.2(14).

[5] CUB Pty Ltd v. Union of India, (2016) 288 CTR 361.

Leave a Reply


  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010