Central website (and/or central telephone number), an infringement of an exclusive catchment area?
In various franchise agreements (in the past), the central acquisition of customers via the internet was not properly considered, in combination with the geographic exclusive territories of the franchisees.
On 10 February 2015, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2015:412) rendered an interesting ruling on the question whether the franchisor’s central website infringed on the franchisee’s exclusive catchment area. The central telephone number of the franchisor was also discussed in that context.
The franchisee argued that the franchisor’s central referral system infringed on the (undisputed portion of the) exclusive service area.
The franchisor disputed this claiming that the exclusive territory, as defined in the franchise agreement, in no way means that potential customers must be referred to the franchise location in the territory in which they are located. This exclusivity only provides that no other franchisees or branches of the franchisor may be established within an assigned district and that entrepreneurs may not work for third parties, according to the franchisor.
According to the franchisor, the referral system also functions properly and (potential) customers from the exclusive service area are referred to the franchisee in question. Via the central telephone number, customers are referred to branches with the shortest travel time for them.
The Court of Appeal ruled that a franchisor who opens a central website is in principle obliged to realize equal opportunities for his franchisees. The franchisee has, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal, not sufficiently proven that the franchisor acted differently than might be expected of it.
With regard to the referral system via the central telephone number, the franchisor had apparently outsourced this to De Telefoongids, whereby the franchisor had made sufficient efforts to bring about synchronicity with the exclusive catchment areas. The referral mechanism based on the shortest travel time was apparently the best possible solution. The Court of Appeal ruled that the franchisor had made sufficient efforts in this respect.
Of course, it is highly dependent on the case-by-case in which way a central referral system functions and should function. In particular, it is also important whether the franchisor itself competes with the franchisee in its exclusive service area. Unlawful competition can easily arise in many webshops of franchisors, if and insofar as this is not (properly) regulated in the franchise agreement.
Mr AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
The bank’s duty of care in franchise agreements
On 23 May 2017, the Court of Appeal in The Hague, EQLI:NL:GHDHA:2017:1368, had to rule on the question whether the bank should have warned a prospective franchisee in connection with the
Article in Entrance: “Standing up”
“Can I fire an employee with immediate effect if he steals something trivial, such as food that has passed its expiration date?”
Arbitration clause in franchise agreement sometimes inconvenient
On 20 July 2016, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2016:4868, ruled on the validity of an agreement in a franchise agreement, whereby disputes would be settled
Supermarket letter – 18
Can an entrepreneur be obliged to operate a different supermarket formula?
Article in Entrance: “New owner”
“The catering company where I work has been taken over. The new owner now says that I no longer have to work for him, but can he refuse me as an employee?”
Directors’ liability in the settlement of a franchise agreement
Privately, can the director of a franchisee legal entity be liable to the franchisor if the franchisee legal entity wrongfully fails to provide business to the franchisor?