In general, the nature of a franchise relationship implies that, on the basis of a franchise agreement, various intellectual property rights are given to the franchisee by the franchisor during the term of the agreement. Examples include the formula name, logos, slogans and house styles, to which the franchisee would not be entitled without his relationship with the franchisor. In many cases, those intellectual property rights are specified in the franchise agreement itself or in an appendix to it.

 The situation described above is based on the assumption that the franchisor in question: a. owns or is authorized to dispose of the aforementioned intellectual property rights and b. is authorized to license it to the relevant franchisee. In most cases these questions can be answered in the affirmative and no further problems are to be expected on this point. In practice, however, there are situations in which one or both questions cannot be answered in a confirmed manner, which may lead to the franchisee in question making unauthorized use of names, logos and corporate identities and the like. The consequence of this may be that a third party, who is authorized to use it, successfully institutes an injunction against the franchisee, possibly reinforced with a claim for damages. Another consequence may be that a third party, whether or not expressly authorized to do so, will also make use of those intellectual property rights, thereby competing the franchisee, as well as the entire franchise organization, in an unexpected and improper manner without the affected franchisee or organization can do something about it.

In order to prevent problems such as those outlined above, it is the franchisor’s responsibility to ensure at all times that all intellectual property rights associated with the formula are adequately filed and protected with the appropriate authorities, such as the Benelux Trademark Office. This is all the more pressing in the case of an internationally operating franchise organization: the franchisor in the Netherlands must then ensure that he is fully authorized to use the foreign formula features in the Netherlands and that they are adequately registered in the Netherlands and abroad. and protected.

A franchisee, in turn, would do well to ensure, if possible before entering into a contract, that his future franchisor is actually authorized and able to provide him with an adequate right to use the intellectual property rights associated with the formula. As follows from the above, this is all the more important if there is a foreign formula that is also operational in the Netherlands. A franchisee would be well advised to request inspection of the actual registration documents of the formula-related characteristics before entering into a contract, if possible accompanied by the registration number and the like. If this registration has been made in accordance with the rules of the art, the franchisor concerned can simply make such matters available for inspection. It is even better, as indicated at the beginning, if this information is added to the franchise agreement as an appendix.

As always, checking beforehand can prevent problems afterwards. The same applies here, both for franchisee and franchisor.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Delivery stop by franchisor again not allowed”

Once again, the president in preliminary relief proceedings ruled on the question whether a franchisor's supply stop against the franchisee was permitted, with the franchisee paying a substantial

The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?

On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee

The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts

A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.

By Ludwig en van Dam|28-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |

Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017

On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the

By Alex Dolphijn|27-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Forecasts at startup franchise formula

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the

Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?

On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation

Go to Top