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

The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?

On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a

Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement

The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position

By Jeroen Sterk|01-09-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee

On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held

Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act

The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.

By Ludwig en van Dam|10-08-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |

Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?

On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.

Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees

To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?

Go to Top