Infringement of non-competition clause, where is the limit?
Court of Amsterdam
In this matter, a former freelancer of massage parlor Doctor Feelgood started his own massage parlor under the name Feelgood-store. The site was located just outside the agreed post-contractual area, ie just over 15 kilometers from the nearest Doctor Feelgood site.
In the first place, it was claimed that using the name Feelgood-store would be unlawful towards Doctor Feelgood, because the new name used was too similar to the old one. However, that claim was rejected in summary proceedings because the President of the court was of the opinion that there could be no risk of confusion among the relevant public. The President was of the opinion that the names Doctor Feelgood and Feelgood-store differ too much from each other to assume that there is a likelihood of confusion, taking into account that the part Feelgood is a descriptive, general and widely used term for services and products in the personal care category, just like, for example, the term wellness, terms that are difficult to protect.
It was also considered whether there had been any other form of impermissible competition. The President considers that Doctor Feelgood has opened a massage parlor without notifying Doctor Feelgood. However, that conduct is not in itself unlawful. The Feelgood store does not violate the post-contract non-competition clause, as its business is more than 15 kilometers from the nearest Doctor Feelgood branch. Now that, in the opinion of the President, the names differ too much, as said, the President does not arrive at establishing an unlawful act by the Feelgood store.
In the eyes of the President, however, the Feelgood store has pushed the boundaries of what is permissible. In franchise relationships, the parties are therefore advised to contractually agree on what exactly the non-competition clause consists of, including which expressions are and are not permitted after the franchise agreement has expired. Naturally, this also includes similar external expressions. However, if a franchisor wants more than has been precisely and precisely agreed upon, he must come from a good house to have the post-contract non-compete clause honored. The franchisee is not bound by more than strictly agreed, if at all. In the case of franchise relations, the circumstances may mean that the non-competition clause is set aside in whole or in part.
Mr Th.R. Ludwig – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys,franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Mail to ludwig@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
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.
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.
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.