Article Franchise+ – “Franchisor uses “derivative formula” (without his knowledge)” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated September 9, 2020

By Published On: 09-09-2020Categories: Statements & current affairs

Many franchisors will not be aware of the fact that they use a “derived formula” as referred to in the Franchise Act. However, such a “derived formula” can soon be found. If that is the case, various legal rights and obligations must be taken into account. 

 

A derivative formula, as referred to under the Franchise Act, is a formula that, in the perception of the public, shows many similarities with the franchise formula and therefore evokes strong associations with that franchise formula. In such a case, the public will think that it concerns the same formula, while in practice there are two separate formulas, both of which are used by or on behalf of the relevant franchisor. 

 

The derived formula can be a franchise formula in its own right, but that is not necessarily the case. This could be a webshop with the same brand name and wholly or partly the same house style, on which (largely) the same products are sold as in the franchise establishment). Another example is the situation in which the franchisor of a supermarket chain intends to set up a formula in the form of, for example, a chain of station shops, where more or less the same products are for sale as in the franchise establishment. Separate home delivery activities may also fall under a derived formula.

 

Formulas that are set up by a franchisor in addition to an existing franchise formula managed by the same franchisor, but which have their own trade name, house style, etc., as a result of which the public does not associate that formula with that existing franchise formula, are not counted as derivative formulas. The possible circumstance that the two formulas concern more or less the same services or products, or are aimed at the same relevant market, does not change this.

 

The franchisor who decides to use a derived formula (whether or not by the franchisor itself or via third parties) must notify the franchisees of this in a timely manner. In doing so, the franchisor must explain the content and purport of the derivative formula in question.

 

Subsequently, under certain circumstances, the franchisor must obtain the consent of the franchisee for the introduction of the derivative formula. If the use of the derivative formula may have financial consequences for the franchisee and that impact exceeds any agreed threshold amount, the franchisor will require prior approval. 

 

Acting contrary to the rules of the Franchise Act can quickly result in an unlawful act. Franchisors are therefore well advised to always consider whether there is a legal concept of the “derived formula” when changing their activities.

 

 

mr. AW Dolphin  – franchise lawyer

Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? 

Go to  dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl

Other messages

Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin

The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.

By Alex Dolphijn|09-01-2020|Categories: Statements & current affairs|

Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin

Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.

Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin

The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.

By Alex Dolphijn|12-11-2019|Categories: Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin

The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.

Link franchise agreement and rental agreement uncertain? – dated October 14, 2019 – mr K. Bastiaans

It is no exception within a franchise relationship that the parties agree that the franchise agreement and the rental agreement are inextricably linked.

By mr. K. Bastiaans|14-10-2019|Categories: Franchise Knowledge Center / National Franchise and Formula Letter Publications|
Go to Top