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
Which court for a rental and franchise agreement?
Which court is competent to rule on a related rental and franchise agreement?
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal burden of proof in forecasts honored by court”
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+.
Franchisor convicted under the Acquisition Fraud Act
For the first time, a court has ruled, with reference to the Acquisition Fraud Act, that if a franchisee claims that the franchisor has presented an unsatisfactory prognosis
Agreements Related to the Franchise Agreement
On 31 October 2017, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal issued similar judgments for nineteen franchisees (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9453 through ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9472).
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.