Post non-compete clause in hard franchising
The summary proceedings judge of the Amsterdam District Court ruled on August 1, 2022, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2022:8010, on the question of whether a franchisee was bound by a post-contractual non-competition ban.
A franchisee claims exemption from the post-contractual ban on competition, apparently in order to continue operating the business under its own name at the same location after the franchise agreement expires.
It has been established that the franchisee intends to continue operations with another entity, unless it uses a new name at the same location. However, this is precisely what the franchisor intended to prevent with the post-competition ban.
According to the judge, the franchisor has made it sufficiently plausible that the franchise formula qualifies as a ‘hard franchise’ and that uniformity, identity, image and name recognition play a major role, unlike in some other rulings where there was a ‘soft franchise’ in which these characteristics played no role. See for example Midden-Nederland District Court January 13, 2016, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:191, Overijssel District Court June 22, 2016, ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2016:2914, Overijssel District Court September 21, 2016 ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2016:3742 and Gelderland District Court February 16, 2021, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2021:1875.
All in all, the franchisor has a compelling interest in preserving, or at least being able to protect, the know-how, identity and reputation associated with its franchise formula. In view of the foregoing, it is therefore not unacceptable according to the standards of reasonableness and fairness under Article 6:248 paragraph 2 of the Dutch Civil Code that the franchisor holds the franchisee to the post-contractual prohibition on competition.
All this means that the franchisor can fully hold the franchisee to the non-compete clause (the post-contractual non-competition clause) and that the franchisee is therefore – in short – not permitted to, during the period of one year after expiry of the franchise agreement, to undertake activities at the location of the branch that are similar and/or competitive to/with the activities of the franchisor, or at least at the aforementioned address to undertake activities that are similar to those carried out by the franchisee in the context of activities carried out under the franchise agreement. The claim in convention will therefore be rejected.
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?
On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee
The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts
A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.
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.