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
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?
Director’s liability of a franchisee after failing to rely on an unsound prognosis.
On 11 July 2017, the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch made a decision on whether the franchisor could successfully sue the director of a BV for non-compliance with the
Liability accountant for prepared prognosis?
In a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch of 11 July 2017, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:3153, it was discussed that franchisees accused the franchisor's accountant of being liable
How far does the bank’s duty of care extend?
Some time ago the question was raised in case law what the position of the bank is in the triangular relationship franchisor – bank – franchisee.
Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?
In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.