Login | Join Us | Contact Us | Search
 
 
 

 
 
  About Us   Press         Conferences   Members   Teams       Publications   Class 46     Position Papers   FAQs        Links     

Class 46 - for your European trade mark news
 

Now in its sixth year, Class 46  is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice.  This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.
 
  MONDAY, 30 AUGUST 2010
Dismissal of dishonest franchisee: protecting a brand and interests in it
In November 2009 the Frankfurt am Main Higher Regional Court became the first German higher court to rule on the validity of termination of a business format franchise without notice based on the suspicion of a crime. The court ultimately affirmed the termination.

In short, the franchisee had the opportunity to place charity donation boxes in its restaurant in order to collect donations for children with serious illnesses. The suspicion arose that customer donations were not being passed on to the foundation, but rather had been deposited in the franchisee's private account.  Under the franchise agreement, termination without notice was permitted if "a justified suspicion existed that the franchisee ... had committed or participated in a serious crime, in particular a property or tax offence with major consequences".

The court found that this termination provision was valid since the clause did not unreasonably prejudice the franchisee contrary to the principle of good faith and did not place the franchisee in a worse position than article  314 of the Civil Code, which provided for termination of a recurring contractual relationship without notice.

 According to the higher court, an important factor in the success of any franchise system is the need to protect the high regard and reputation of the franchise system's brand in the interests of all participants in the system, particularly those of the other franchisees. 

Source: article by Karsten Metzlaff or Karl Rauser (Noerr LLP) for International Law Office (here).

Posted by: Jeremy Phillips @ 12.43 
Tags:

 

   0 comments:    Post a comment

 
 

Search Class 46
Search:

Who we all are...

Birgit Clark
Edith Van den Eede
Fidel Porcuna
Frédéric Glaize
Gino Van Roeyen
Jeremy Phillips
Kathrin Vowinckel
Laetitia Lagarde
Mark Schweizer
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Pedro Malaquias
Robert Börner
Tomasz Rychlicki

Receive Class 46 by email
3350 readers now receive the Class 46 weblog by email circular. Why don't you?

To subscribe, just type your email address in the box below, then click the 'Subscribe' button.
email:

Receive Class 46 by RSS Feed
523 readers now receive the Class 46 weblog via an RSS reader.

Subscribe in a reader


The Class 46 archive


+ 2013
+ 2012
+ 2011
- 2010
     + December (50)
     + November (47)
     + October (40)
     + September (46)
     - August (30)
Facebook.me transferred to rightful owner
Preparing for the new gTLDs: a survey
Poland: membership in capital group is not enough
The weird case of the ZAHIA trade marks applications
Dismissal of dishonest franchisee: protecting a brand and interests in it
Greece - penalty clauses and trade mark agreements
"Absurd trade mark disputes"
iPod sees off eiPott threat
"Euro-defences" can't be swept aside by summary judgment, rules appellate court
More protection for branded booze sold in noisy bars
Poland: conflict between trade names
"Aura of luxury" assists Chanel against 'poor quality' marketing
Saucisse de Morteau names protected
September ETMR now out
Community Trade Mark Infringements in the Netherlands: how exclusive is the jurisdiction of The Hague District Court?
Coffee soup? Srsly?
UK to continue CTM owner notifications -- for now
New UK guidance on requests for cross-examination in Registry proceedings
Guccio Gucci successful in Italy as Florence Court stops use of Elisabetta Gucci mark.
Finland: NEW WAVE not descriptive for goods in class 25
Switzerland: SKY not confusingly similar to SKYPE
Poland: bound by the law
OHIM: Spanish trade marks via TMview
Beans, cheese, peppers in latest round of GIs
Non-minor amendments affect peach and nectarine GIs
VITA veto'd by VIETA
Autopaint: court reviews principles for assessing infringement damages
Arbitrating CTM disputes: a reader asks ...
August 2010 ETMR now out
OHIM introduces some practice changes
     + July (55)
     + June (40)
     + May (33)
     + April (42)
     + March (62)
     + February (44)
     + January (36)
+ 2009
+ 2008
+ 2007

 
 

Terms of Use: The material included on this site is provided for information purposes only, and we make no representations or warranties as to its accuracy. It does not represent legal advice. Before relying on this material, you should take care to verify its accuracy, taking professional advice as appropriate. [Please click here for the full Terms and Conditions of Use]

Copyright ©2008-2013 MARQUES Ltd and Individual Contributors