(1) Starbucks is in the coffee business. It would make sense for them to license (or legally keep) the name.
(2) 2 years. A short term transitional move to the other company just for brand familiarity. But the “real” owner kept the name.
(3) Perhaps Sennheiser is like Sharp here. Sennheiser sells the consumer audio business to Sonova and use of the name. Sennheiser keeps their name for their higher end products business line. Now Sonova wants to sell that business. Do they also let go of the name? Why wouldn’t they? They would no longer be doing consumer audio. Or maybe the Sennheiser brand can’t be held separately contractually.
(4) Name licensing, sure. I’m familiar with Luxotica, they’re massive.
I would venture to guess that Sonova would not need the brand. The brand MEANS wearable, external audio. Not hearing aids (not counting which is in Sennheiser). When I hear Sennheiser I think headphones. Period. That’s the brand. I thought it quite peculiar to think of that brand on hearing aids.
You’re ignoring this member’s posts.