No non-compete violation by franchisee – February 9, 2016 – mr. AW Dolphin
Has a former franchisee violated the non-compete clause by offering services outside an agreed territory? The court thinks not. The non-competition prohibition only applies to own brokerage activities and not to the presentation of brokerage activities of third parties. See the judgment of the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court of 13 January 2016, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:191 (123Wonen/ex-franchisee).
Franchisor and franchisee had concluded a franchise agreement with regard to a formula for intermediation in, among other things, renting and renting out accommodation. The parties had agreed that after the termination of the franchise agreement, the franchisee was not allowed to carry out brokerage activities with regard to the rental of homes (with the exception of 20 permitted properties) outside a certain geographical area. However, the former franchisee’s website lists more than the 20 excluded objects from outside the agreed upon area. Is there now a violation of the post non-compete clause?
The preliminary relief judge of the district court rules that the post non-competition prohibition only concerns brokerage activities and that the parties have not made any agreements about offering homes in which other estate agents mediate. Now that this has not been sufficiently contested by the former franchisor and further evidence in the context of summary proceedings is limited.
This judgment shows once again that the formulation of a non-competition clause must be done with great care.
mr. AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
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
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
Transfer customer data to franchisor
In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.
Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?
The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Judge: franchisor’s duty of care comparable to that of a bank”
Various judgments in 2016 made it clear how high the standard of care for a franchisor towards its franchisees is.