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

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

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,

By Alex Dolphijn|10-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

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.

Go to Top