The right to the formula name upon termination of the franchise relationship
In practice, discussions regularly occur when the franchise relationship is terminated between a franchisor and one or more franchisees regarding the question of whether and to what extent the departing franchisee(s) is/are entitled to continued use of the formula name. This discussion arises in particular in the event that a collective of franchisees part ways with the franchisor and in particular when all franchisees of the organization are involved in such a case. The reasoning is often that it is the franchisees who have made the name what it is. If the departure of the franchisees is also due to (alleged) attributable shortcomings on the part of the franchisor, then the idea takes hold that, certainly against that background, the franchisees have the right to continue using the name.
Of course, it happens that departing franchisees set up a new organization under the name of the franchisor they just left. However, this should be based on corresponding agreements. If there are none, then it is the franchisor who is and remains the rightful claimant to the formula name. The franchise agreement often also contains a provision to that effect. This is not affected by the fact that the franchisor in question did not adequately comply with the franchise agreement or, in general, in the opinion of the franchisees, did not function as a good franchisor. A nuance in this regard may be that, in a specific case, the franchisor has not adequately ensured the trademark protection of the name. If that is the case, a situation could arise in which the franchisees register the name as a trademark with the Benelux Trademark Register. In practice, however, such a situation will not easily arise, since a good franchisor naturally ensures adequate protection of its format name and, as stated, the provisions of the franchise agreement stand in the way of such a course of action.
In conclusion:
In almost all cases, therefore, leaving the organization means giving up the name of the formula.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Column Franchise+ – 50 percent more franchise lawsuits
The 2018 Legal Franchise Statistics published by Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten shows that there has been a 50% increase in the number of judgments in court cases rendered in 2017 compared to
A closer look at the intention to introduce franchising legislation
On May 23rd, State Secretary Mona Keijzer informed the House of Representatives about the imminent franchise legislation. The National Franchise Guide previously published this article.
Consumer Protection Applies to Franchisee
The consumer enjoys broad protection on the basis of the Civil Code.
Update Franchise Law
On 23 May 2018, the government indicated that it would prepare a legal regulation that creates a framework for four sub-areas of cooperation between franchisors and franchisees that are crucial
On the edge of a franchisee’s exclusive territory
The Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden ruled on 15 May 2018, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:4395, on the question whether a franchisor has a branch just over the edge of the exclusively granted protection area.
Can a franchisee cohabit with a competing entrepreneur?
Can a franchisee violate a non-compete clause by cohabiting with someone who runs a competing business? On January 12, 2018, the District Court of Central Netherlands ruled