The accidental incidental use of a brand by the former franchisee
The judgment of the District Court of Gelderland of 9 March 2016, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2016:1691 (ERA Nederland/Houvast Makelaardij) concerns a situation in which a franchisee had terminated the franchise agreement with the franchisor. The franchisor confirmed the termination. The
franchisee was advised to remove all references to ERA from its business operations. The former franchisee has argued that he has actively removed the brands from ERA and that he has made further efforts to do so. Nevertheless, unintentional incidental brands of ERA have remained in use, caused by busyness and carelessness, according to the former franchisee. In some places, for example, ERA expressions have remained unintentionally visible on photos on the website of the former franchisee and on that of Funda and on for sale signs and posters of properties that the former franchisee manages.
According to the preliminary relief judge, the aforementioned use constitutes trademark infringement pursuant to Article 2.20 paragraph 1 sub a BCIP. The lack of malicious intent or intent on the part of the former franchisee does not detract from this infringement. Intent is not required for presuming an infringement. The fact that the unauthorized use of the trademark did not take place on a large scale does not detract from the infringement either. Pursuant to Article 2.21 paragraph 2 sub b BCIP, the damage is determined as a fixed amount on the basis of the license fee that would have been due under the terminated franchise agreement if the former franchisee had requested and received permission to use the ERA brands.
It follows from this judgment that it is important to realize that, in principle, the inadvertent and incidental continued use of trademark rights of the former franchisor can also be sanctioned.
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.