Feature
By David Haigh and Michael Rocha
Digging deep for
true brand value
There is nothing new in listings that purport to show
the world’s most valuable brands. But in the eyes of
many, what they have lacked up to now is real
technical credibility. However, a recently released
evaluation study is much more detailed and
comprehensive than what has come before
As part of his presentation at the recent Berkshire Hathaway annual
shareholders’ meeting, Warren Buffet said: “I can make a whole lot
more money skilfully managing intangible assets than tangible
assets.” And if Buffet is true to his words, one of the first types of
intangible he will look at is brands, arguably the single most
important category of intangible assets.
Given the potential value in brands, it makes sense that an
increasing number of executive boards devote an equal amount of
attention to their return on investment (ROI) and evaluation as they
spend in relation to monitoring tangible assets. In addition, in
March 2004 the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB)
issued a new standard – IFRS3 Business Combinations. In essence,
IFRS3 requires all publicly listed companies to place the value of
acquired brands and other acquired intangible assets on their
balance sheets. This standard followed many years of global debate
concerning the accounting treatment of brands.
These changes have brought a greater prominence to the
ongoing debate concerning brand and intangible asset valuation,
and have also increased the numbers of those participating in the
debate. International standard setting bodies are now establishing
various initiatives in a bid to standardize valuation techniques.
As a result of the increased focus on brand valuation, there has
been an increase in the number of global brand league tables
produced by valuation consultancies. However, until recently, these
tables did not stand up to technical scrutiny: the methodologies
used for the valuation calculations were not deemed sufficiently
transparent or accountable to be used in technical valuations such
as for accounting or tax purposes. Therefore, we decided to
undertake the most extensive valuation study to date into the
contribution brands make to business value. The result – known as
the BrandFinance250 (BF250) – is the first index of its kind to use
the same rigorous valuation techniques that are used to comply
with the high technical standards demanded for accounting or tax-
related valuations.
The BF250 values have been calculated using the Royalty Relief
6 World Trademark Review May/June 2007
method. Not only is this methodology deemed acceptable by
technical authorities worldwide (accounting and tax authorities,
courts of law and leading audit firms) because it calculates brand
values by reference to comparable, third-party transactions, but it
also ties back to the commercial reality of brands: specifically their
ability to command a premium in an arm’s length transaction.
Critically it can also be performed on the basis of publicly available
financial information. No other methodologies applied in published
brand valuation tables can make equivalent claims.
The BF250 index contains several outputs in addition to a brand
value figure:
• Brand value/enterprise value: the financial value of the brand
divided by the value of the business (total equity + total debt).
• Brand Strength Index – the total score out of 100 from a
composite index of different measures of brand strength.
• Brand Rating – a credit-rating style assessment of each brand.
Thus, the analysis provides not only a valuable benchmarking
exercise, in comparing and quantifying the brand champions across
a wide range of categories and countries, but also offers insight into
the strength of each brand in the form of the Brand Ratings and
reveals the contribution of the brand to overall business value
(brand value/enterprise value).
Therefore, the final dollar figure is not necessarily the sole
deliverable. The analysis can help to evaluate where each brand
ranks in comparison with its peer group, or assess the level of brand
contribution to the total business value, or provide an opinion as to
the security of the brand’s future revenues.
In order to explain how these diagnostic results can be applied
to ensure more efficient brand management, it is important first to
understand the valuation methodology in more detail.
What do we mean by brand?
Before embarking on any valuation exercise, it is critical to ensure
the asset being valued has been clearly and unambiguously defined.
One criticism that is often levelled at brand value league tables is
the lack of definition concerning brand. Therefore, the first step in
our study was to work out what we meant by brand.
Broadly speaking, there are three different ways of defining
‘brand’ for valuation purposes.
Logos and associated visual elements are the basis for the most
specific definition. This focuses on the legally protectable, visual and
verbal elements that are used to differentiate one company’s
products and services from those of others, and to stimulate
www.WorldTrademarkReview.com
demand for those products and services. The main legal elements
covered by this definition are trade names, trademarks and trade
symbols. However, in order to add value, trademarks and trade
symbols need to carry associated goodwill in the minds of
customers based on the experience or reputation of high quality
products and good service. We refer to this as the trademark(s).
Looking at a larger bundle of trademark and associated IP rights
extends the concept of the brand. Marketing intangibles such as
domain names, product design rights, trade dress, packaging,
copyrights in associated colours, smells, sounds, descriptors,
logotypes, advertising visuals and written copy are often included in
this wider definition. We refer to this as the brand. This is the
definition applied within the BF250.
A combination of all these legal rights, together with the culture,
people and programmes of an organization, all provide a basis for
differentiation and value creation. Taken as a whole, they represent a
specific value proposition and provide the basis for strong customer
relationships. We refer to this as the branded business.
The illustration below represents these definitions graphically.
How do you value brands?
Whether you are valuing brands as separate intangible assets or the
branded business as a whole, the approach to valuation is very similar.
To begin with there is a general presumption that valuations are
based on the fair market value (FMV) principle. This is defined as:
“The estimated amount for which a property should exchange on
the date of valuation between a willing buyer and a willing seller in
an arm’s-length transaction after proper marketing wherein the
parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently, and without
compulsion.” (International Valuation Standard 1, International
Valuation Standards Committee.)
In arriving at FMV the valuer has to use expected earnings based
on the highest and best use (HABU) of the asset in question. HABU is
defined as: “The most probable use of a property which is physically
possible, appropriately justified, legally permissible, financially
feasible, and which results in the highest value of the property being
valued.” (International Valuation Standard 1, International Valuation
Standards Committee.) Assuming you are determining FMV based
on HABU it is then necessary to select one of the alternative
valuation bases recommended by the International Valuation
Standards Committee. These are:
• Cost based valuations. It is possible to value a brand on the basis of
what it actually cost to create or what it might theoretically cost to
recreate. This technique is of limited use as historic or estimated
costs may bear little similarity to the current value of a brand.
• Market based valuations. When information on market
transactions involving comparable brands is available, it is
possible to estimate one brand’s value by comparing it to
another brand. However, the fact that such data is scarce and
brands are unique makes this an unsatisfactory primary method
of valuing a brand. It is worth noting, however, that market
comparisons can be useful in testing a primary valuation.
• Economic use valuations. This method takes into account the
economic value of a brand as it is currently used and focuses on
the brand’s contribution to revenues and earnings – both now
and in the future. This involves estimating likely future sales and
then applying an appropriate brand contribution rate to arrive
at the income attributable to the brand in current and future
years. The stream of notional brand earnings is discounted back
to a net present value – the brand value.
Within economic use valuations, there are a number of
www.WorldTrademarkReview.com
approaches such as price premium analysis, Brand Value Added®,
economic substitution and royalty relief. Each methodology has
strengths and weaknesses depending on the requirements of the
specific valuation. For the purposes of the BF250 valuation analysis,
royalty relief was deemed the most appropriate methodology.
How does the royalty relief approach work?
Royalty relief is an economic use approach that determines the
value of the brand by determining a royalty rate that would be
payable if the brand were owned by a third party. The identified
royalty rate is applied to estimated future sales revenues to
determine an earnings stream that is attributable to the brand – that
is, the brand’s value is the equivalent value to what the company is
relieved from paying by virtue of owning the brand.
We first calculate a royalty rate range applicable to the industry
and application. For example, beer brands typically command
royalty rates in the range 2% (weak local brand) to 8% (strong
international brand) of net sales revenues. We then assess the
strength of each brand relative to its competitors across a range of
measures to generate a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score out of 100.
The BSI is used to pinpoint a rate in the identified royalty rate
range. In the foregoing example a BSI score of 50 would result in a
royalty rate of 5% (midway point between 2% and 8%). The score is
also used to generate the Brand Rating.
This royalty rate is corroborated by reference to a profit margin
analysis of comparable companies. Most research shows that profit
margins are directly correlated with the royalty rates that brands are
able to command. After applying the royalty rate to sales revenues, the
brand-related earnings stream is then discounted back to a net present
value (NPV) using a discount rate that is calculated from first principles.
Discount rates used in this valuation approach are based on the
widely accepted capital asset pricing model (CAPM) to determine a
Defining what is being valued
Enterprise
Branded business
Brand
Shell
Group
PLC
Shell Shell oil
V-Power products
May/June 2007 World Trademark Review 7
Feature: Digging deep for true brand value

Brand value as a proportion

The world’s strongest brands of enterprise value – top 10

Brand Number Brands Rating Definition Brands Brand value

rating of brands AAA Extremely strong /enterprise
AA Very strong value %
AAA+ 12 Coca-Cola, Kellogg’s, McDonald's, A Strong
Microsoft, Gillette, Chanel, Nike, BBB Average 1 Nike 84%
Sony, BMW, Google, BB Under-performing 2 Prada 77%
PricewaterhouseCoopers, Prada B Weak 3 Acer 71%
AAA 8 Gucci, Apple, Nokia, Dell, Louis Vuitton, CCC Very weak 4 Avon 68%
Porsche, HSBC, Harley-Davidson CC Extremely weak 5 Bulgari 68%
AAA- 17 Singapore Airlines, Disney, Budweiser, C Failing 6 Chanel 66%
Starbucks, Nintendo, Siemens, Shell, 7 Estée Lauder 61%
Moët & Chandon, American Express, 8 Quiksilver 60%
Wrigley’s, Hennessy, Heineken, Oracle, 9 Calvin Klein 58%
Jaguar, eBay, Evian, BT 10 adidas 56%

cost of equity that, when combined with a cost of debt and level of
gearing, forms the weighted average cost of capital (WACC)
applicable to the subject brand.
The BSI analysis is also used to flex the WACC up or down based
on the connection between brand strength and perceived risk; a
weak brand is deemed to have a higher risk profile and commands a
higher WACC; and vice versa. We call this ßrandßeta® analysis.
What does BF250 index show?
The total value of the BF250 most valuable global brands is $2,179
trillion. Much of this brand value is not located in conventional
consumer goods sectors, underlining the point that brands now
create significant economic value in all sectors, from utilities to
finance. Three of the top 10 brands are banking institutions.
US and European brands dominate the BF250 in 2007. Nine of
the top 10 brands are from the United States. Coca-Cola, the
quintessential US consumer brand, emerges as the world’s most
valuable brand, recording a value of $43,146 million. Its iconic
design, ubiquitous distribution and enduring customer loyalty have
ensured Coca-Cola’s global success: nearly two-thirds of sales now
occur outside of North America. Coke’s largest growth in 2006
occurred in the developing markets of North Asia, Eurasia and the
Middle East. The brand also receives an AAA+ Brand Rating, one of
only 12 in the BF250 which does.
Budweiser, the US beer brand, records a brand value of $16.196
billion and is ranked in 33rd position. However, the ownership of the
brand is ambiguous and contested in certain territories by the Czech
company Budweiser Budvar. Brand Finance estimated in 2006 that
the value of the Anheuser Busch branded business would increase
by $11 billion if it secured unfettered trademark rights worldwide.
Brand value/enterprise value analysis
One piece of analysis that can provide an illuminating snapshot of a
brand’s success is to compare its value to the enterprise value of the
company – enterprise value is the full value of the business, defined
as market capitalization plus debt. Assuming the company is mono-
branded, this analysis shows the direct contribution that the brand
makes to the overall value of the company.
The Nike brand makes the most valuable contribution to its
parent company’s value: the brand represents 84% of total
enterprise value. The second most valuable brand in this category is
Prada, representing 77% of the company’s value: a testament to the
leadership and design skills of Miuccia Prada and the critical role of
branding in the luxury goods sector. Acer makes an entry at number
three; this is partially attributable to a relatively low enterprise value
compared with revenues. Revenues are one of the key value drivers
in the royalty relief valuation methodology.
Fashion and cosmetic brands comprise almost all of the top 10,
including Chanel and Estée Lauder, representing 66% and 61% of the
parent company’s value respectively.
On average, brand values represent 18% of the total enterprise
value of the businesses represented within the BF250, confirming
the importance of brands to the overall value and success of the
businesses that they symbolise. This evidence supports calls for
brands to be strategically managed by both marketing and financial
departments alongside senior management.
Brand Ratings
The Brand Rating represents a summary opinion on a brand based
on its strength as measured by the Brand Strength Index. This
competitive benchmarking tool provides an understanding of the
strength of each brand and is used to determine appropriate royalty
and discount rates in the brand valuation process using our
proprietary ßrandßeta® methodology.
The Brand Rating delivers insight into the underlying strength of
each brand and illustrates how valuations require a robust analysis
of each brand’s performance in order to determine its value.
The top 12 brands in this category in the BF250 all receive an
AAA+ Brand Rating. The recurrent theme among these 12 is their
consistent focus on brand in all key decision-making. Each one is a
clear market leader within its sector and their owners rigorously
enforce IP rights in order to protect the brands from imitation,
passing-off or dilution, all of which erode brand equity and value.
These leaders also have a reputation for continuous brand-
focused innovation and forensic attention to brand management, be
it technology-related for Google (Google Earth and Gmail), or
aesthetically, as embodied by Prada’s Herzog & de Meuron-designed
flagship store in Tokyo.
What commercial objectives can be served by a brand valuation?
The mere act of valuing an asset – whether financial, tangible or
intangible – does nothing to improve its value. So why do companies
undertake brand valuations? There are three basic reasons why one
may be needed:
• It is required for accounting, tax or legal reasons.
• It will inform the terms of a prospective transaction (brand due
diligence).
• It will enhance management of the brand and branded business.

8 World Trademark Review May/June 2007 www.WorldTrademarkReview.com

Accounting purposes
On March 31 2004, the significant differences that previously had
separated international and US rules on accounting for business
acquisitions disappeared. Both US and international rules (Financial
Accounting Standard 141 in the United States and International
Financial Reporting Standard 3 elsewhere) require that all identifiable
intangible assets of an acquired business be recorded at fair value in
the consolidated balance sheet of the acquiring company. This has
ended the previous practice of treating the excess of the purchase
price over the net tangible assets acquired as a single goodwill figure.
Now there is a requirement that this single goodwill figure be
broken down into a number of specific intangible assets, leaving
only a small residual amount of unidentified goodwill. The types of
intangible assets that are now to be expressly recognized include:
• technology-based assets, such as patents;
• contract-based assets, such as leases and licensing agreements;
• artistic assets, such as plays and films;
• customer-based assets, such as customer relationships; and
• marketing-related assets, such as brands.
Tax purposes
Brand-based tax planning is an increasingly common practice.
Companies transfer the ownership of their brands and other IP
assets to a central IP-holding company (IPCo).
If companies are active in multiple territories, locating and
managing the IPCo from one central location, potentially in a low
tax jurisdiction, often makes for a compelling commercial case. It is
important that genuine commercial drivers for the establishment of
the IPCo can be demonstrated. Commercial benefits identified from
central management of brands frequently include:
• Better governance and control.
• Better and more consistent brand management.
• Licensing of brands into non-core areas, generating new revenues.
• Creation of a profit centre leading to improved visibility of
economic returns generated by brands.
• Increased visibility within the overall business organization.
The size and authority of the IPCo can be variable and
dependent on the requirements of the company in question.
Examples of well-established IPCos include:
• BATMark (in the United Kingdom, United States, Switzerland and
the Netherlands).
• Société des Produits Nestlé (Switzerland).
• Philip Morris Products SA (Switzerland).
www.WorldTrademarkReview.com
In addition to improving the quality and efficiency of brand
management, it is management’s duty to ensure that any
restructuring is organized in a tax efficient manner. The financial
benefits of IPCo’s can include:
• Accumulation of profits in a low tax jurisdiction.
• Tax deductions for the amortization of intangible assets owned
by IPCos.
• Tax deductions in high tax jurisdictions.
• Depending on double tax treaties, the elimination or reduction
of withholding taxes on income flows resulting from the
exploitation of IP.
Key operational issues to be addressed include establishing the
optimal location for the IPCo, deciding on which functions it should
perform and, therefore, how it should be staffed, and what royalty
rates it should charge in third-party licensing deals.
There are also tax issues to be addressed such as capital gains
tax on the transfer of IP to the new company and agreeing the
royalty rates with the relevant tax authorities for charges to other
group companies (ie, transfer pricing).
The potential benefits of this kind of restructuring are often very
large, but it is not something to be undertaken lightly.
Legal purposes
Brand valuation can also be useful to lawyers in IP-related cases. In
certain cases, for example, there is a need for the brand valuer to
conduct forensic accounting to uncover all the relevant financial
data for a thorough appraisal of the brand in question.
There may be a need to understand the scale and quality and
strength of brand equity from market research studies. It is often
helpful to understand the level of royalty rates that should be
applied to particular brands.
These pieces of analysis may be used in any one of three
situations familiar to lawyers:
• Account of profits (where one party has intentionally or
inadvertently infringed brand rights and needs to account to the
brand owner for the unauthorized usage. This may involve an
actual account of net profits or more simply an account of
inferred royalties for the usage).
• Loss of profits (where the brand owner seeks to quantify the loss
of profits to its own business resulting from infringement of
brand rights or illegal damage done to the brand by a third party).
• Loss of value (where capital values may have been lost or
damaged as the result of actions taken by a third party).
May/June 2007 World Trademark Review 9
Feature: Digging deep for true brand value
It is likely that even those
initially resistant to brand
valuation as a value-creating
process will be directly
affected by it
Transaction purposes
External transactions involving brands usually take the form of
acquisitions of branded companies or of licensing of brands from
third parties. In each case, commercial due diligence and brand
valuation are required to verify the economic value of the asset
being acquired or licensed and to inform the discussion over the
deal terms.
In the case of acquisitions, the knowledge that accounting rules
now require allocation of the purchase price between the different
types of assets acquired has heightened the significance of the pre-
acquisition brand valuation process.
We call this process Brand Due Diligence (BDD). In addition to
informing future purchase price allocation, it also provides a
detailed opinion on the security of brand-related future cash flows
and forecast profitability in a way that is not addressed by other
conventional due diligences. BDD is often undertaken in
conjunction with legal or financial investigations, particularly where
the brand or marketing function is central to business performance.
The process can be undertaken at three stages: acquisition;
portfolio review; and disposal.
In acquisition, there are three key benefits:
• It helps to ensure the right price is paid – particularly important
when the deal involves a large proportion of intangible assets.
Given the frenzied bidding surrounding many recent brand-
centric deals, this is becoming increasingly critical to pre-
acquisition planning.
• It tests initial assumptions made by management and investors,
and offers insight into risks and opportunities.
• The BDD report provides considerable reassurance to leveraged
finance/debt providers as to the value of the investment.
In terms of the portfolio review stage, the main benefit is to help
identify and facilitate growth opportunities, and to determine
optimal exit timing.
In disposal, the benefits include: quantifying the strength of the
brand(s) and branded business and identification of growth and
10 World Trademark Review May/June 2007
extension opportunities, thereby helping to ensure that the vendor
achieves the maximum exit value possible.
Enhanced management of the brand
The third reason for a brand valuation offers significant opportunity
for value enhancement. We call this value-based marketing.
In value-based marketing, the purpose of the valuation is to
improve marketing's effectiveness. Its goal is to measure the extent
to which brands enhance underlying business performance and how
they can enhance the value of the company. Such commercial brand
valuations are also frequently used to explain and justify marketing
budgets and to express the outcomes of different marketing
strategies in financial terms. These evaluations are often based on a
dynamic financial model of the business and their key output is
assessing the impact of alternative strategies on branded business
value, and hence on shareholder value. These valuations can be used
in many situations, including the following:
• Brand architecture – helping companies better manage and
leverage value from existing brands within their portfolio and
define how the corporate brand and sub-brands relate to and
support each other.
• Portfolio management – evaluating the optimal mix within a
brand or product, market or segment portfolio for maximum
value creation.
• Budget allocation – by identifying the markets, customers and
channels that generate the most value, brand valuation analysis
can assist with budget optimization and resource allocation to
help management teams evaluate marketing ROI.
• Brand transition – brand valuation analysis can help articulate
and track the potential value created following a change of
brand identity.
• Brand scorecards – helping to measure performance of the
marketing function against the key performance indicators, both
short and long-term, to help management identify key metrics
and targets in the form of a dashboard type reporting tool.
Brand scorecards are often used by investor relations
departments, as well as by marketing and corporate
communications departments.
Unsurprisingly an increasing number of leading companies
are valuing their brands or brand portfolio. The critical issue to
remember is that the main benefit of brand valuation is not simply
the single figure that is produced at the end of the calculations.
Instead, it is the necessary valuation analysis that helps companies
deconstruct what is really driving business value, illustrating the
connection between the marketing function and financial
performance.
There is no doubt that recent years have seen intangibles rise
significantly in importance as an asset class. This, along with the
ongoing changes related to the accounting standards, has helped
change the way board members at many blue chip companies see
brands. Moving forward, it is likely that even those initially resistant
to brand valuation as a value-creating process will be directly
affected by it. Hopefully even the sceptics will benefit from its
ability to connect marketing with finance and associated insights
over the next few years. WTR
David Haigh is CEO of Brand Finance plc and Michael Rocha
is Group MD.
This article originally appeared in issue 23 of WTR's sister
publication IAM magazine (www.iam-magazine.com)
www.WorldTrademarkReview.com
The world’s leading brands
Rank Brand Parent company Sector Enterprise Brand Brand Brand
value value value/ rating
($M) ($M) enterprise
2006* 2006* value (%)*

1 Coca-Cola Coca-Cola Co Beverages 110,442 43,146 39% AAA+

2 Microsoft Microsoft Corp Software 248,010 37,074 15% AAA+
3 Citi Citigroup Inc Financial services 274,605 35,148 13% AA+
4 Wal-Mart Wal-Mart Stores Retail 239,697 34,899 15% A
5 IBM IBM Computers 149,384 34,074 23% AA-
6 HSBC HSBC Holdings Plc Financial services 240,568 33,495 14% AAA
7 GE General Electric Misc manufacturer 717,630 31,850 4% AA+
8 Bank of America Bank of America Financial services 266,506 31,426 12% AA+
9 Hewlett-Packard Hewlett-Packard Computers 125,245 29,445 24% AA+
10 Marlboro Altria Group Inc Tobacco 188,803 26,990 14% AA-
11 Vodafone Vodafone Group Telecommunications 157,606 26,752 17% AA
12 Gillette Procter & Gamble Cosmetics/personal care 216,692 26,649 12% AAA+
13 Intel Intel Corp Computers 114,136 25,095 22% AA+
14 L'Oréal L'Oréal SA Cosmetics/personal care 63,900 25,050 39% AA+
15 Google Google Inc Cl A Internet 133,237 24,687 19% AAA+
16 Toyota Toyota Motor Corp Auto manufacturers 283,637 24,534 9% AA-
17 Nokia Nokia Oyj Wireless equipment 68,544 24,280 35% AAA
18 McDonald's McDonald's Corp Retail-restaurants 66,031 24,083 36% AAA+
19 Pepsi PepsiCo Inc Beverages 106,898 23,948 22% AA
20 Dell Dell Inc Computers 44,920 23,621 53% AAA
21 Disney The Walt Disney Co Media 94,903 23,145 24% AAA-
22 Louis Vuitton LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA Fashion 57,508 22,962 4% AAA
23 Mercedes-Benz DaimlerChrysler AG Auto manufacturers 113,269 22,551 2% AA+
24 Time Warner Time Warner Inc Media 102,338 22,404 22% AA-
25 Verizon Verizon Communications Inc Telecommunications 172,062 19,910 12% A+
26 American Express American Express Co Credit cards 73,148 18,109 25% AAA-
27 BMW Bayer Motoren Werk Auto manufacturers 64,516 17,860 28% AAA+
28 Nike Nike Inc Apparel 21,151 17,818 84% AAA+
29 Banco Santander Banco Santander Central Hispano SA Financial services 117,038 17,063 15% AA-
30 Cisco Cisco Systems Software 142,063 16,782 12% AA
31 Nescafé Nestlé SA Food 143,932 16,542 11% AA-
32 Samsung Samsung Electronics Co Electronics 105,471 16,537 16% A+
33 Budweiser Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc Beverages 44,122 16,196 37% AAA-
34 Tesco Tesco Plc Retail 66,246 16,136 24% AA+
35 TIM Telecom Italia SpA Telecommunications 103,603 16,136 16% AA-
36 Shell Royal Dutch Shell Plc Oil & gas 221,074 15,621 7% AAA-
37 Home Depot Home Depot Inc Retail 74,279 15,360 21% A+
38 UBS UBS AG Financial services 139,425 15,137 11% AA-
39 AIG American International Group Inc Insurance 194,345 14,851 8% BBB
40 AXA AXA Insurance 63,232 14,389 23% A-
41 Wells Fargo & Co Wells Fargo & Co Financial services 133,512 14,277 11% AA
42 UPS United Parcel Service Inc Transport services 83,204 14,168 17% AA-
43 Allianz Allianz AG Insurance 90,047 13,862 15% A
44 ExxonMobil Exxon Mobil Corp Oil & gas 396,319 13,148 9% A+
45 Generali Assicurazioni Generali Insurance 57,946 12,895 22% A-
46 Apple Apple Inc Computers 59,737 12,809 21% AAA
47 News Corp News Corp Media 71,657 12,523 17% A-
48 BP BP Plc Oil & gas 240,345 12,376 5% AA+
49 BNP Paribas BNP Paribas Financial services 113,304 12,278 11% A
50 Barclays Barclays Plc Financial services 94,851 12,182 13% A
51 Chase JPMorgan Chase & Co Financial services 190,157 12,083 6% AA-
52 Gucci PPR SA Fashion 24,094 11,657 48% AAA
53 Credit Suisse Credit Suisse Reg Financial services 81,957 11,519 14% A-
54 China Mobile China Mobile Ltd Telecommunications 142,748 11,018 8% A+
55 Cingular AT&T Inc Telecommunications 163,117 10,851 7% AA-

*December 31 2006

www.WorldTrademarkReview.com May/June 2007 World Trademark Review 11