The possibility of actively or not actively recruiting customers outside

Based on the relevant regulations, it is permitted to limit the franchisee’s active solicitation activities to its exclusive territory. In that area, the franchisee can then freely advertise and acquire customers in any other way. In that case, the franchisor should not impose any restrictions on the franchisee in actively acquiring customers within the exclusive territory. It is of course possible that certain advertisements end up outside the exclusive territory of the relevant franchisee, whether or not via the internet.

It follows from the above that when a customer, who is not located in the franchisee’s exclusive territory, turns to this franchisee, the franchisee is free to do business with this customer. This also applies, of course, if such customer contact is established via the internet or a catalogue. In that context, however, a franchisee may be prohibited from actively distributing e-mails outside its exclusive territory. This is what is known as active recruitment. In other words: if there is active sales, the possibilities of a franchisee can be limited. In summary, the above means that if a franchisor allocates an exclusive territory to its franchisee, the franchisee must have considerable freedom in acquiring customers in that territory; the so-called active sale. The franchisor can only impose restrictions if the sales activities take place in the area outside the exclusive territory of the relevant franchisee. Often this will also arise from the protection of other franchisees located in that adjacent area, each with its own exclusive area.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

Goodwill at end of franchise agreement

In a case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 26 September 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:3900 (Seal & Go), a franchisee claimed compensation for goodwill (ex Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) after the

Cost price that is too high as a hidden franchise fee

An interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 30 August 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:10597 (Happy Nurse) shows that the court has considered the question whether the

Damage estimate after wrongful termination of the franchise agreement by the franchisor

In a judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 September 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2372 (Franchisee/Coop), it was discussed that supermarket organization Coop had not complied with agreements, as a result of which the franchisee

Franchisor is obliged to extend the franchise agreement

On 6 September 2017, the Rotterdam District Court ruled, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:6975 (Misty / Bram Ladage), that the refusal to extend a franchise agreement by a franchisor

Go to Top